-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
[Threat Interactive] Why Fox Engine's Graphics In MGSV Are So Dang Good
- Thread starter PSlayer
- Start date
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
Aside from being optimized which at that time wasnt that much of an issue as Today, I don't think Fox engine looked or did anything visually spectacular or used properly anyway. MGSV was just empty fucking deserts most of the game.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
How to tell me you don't know what you're looking at without directly saying you don't know what you're looking at
Fox was ridiculously good for its time (2013).
daninthemix
Member
I absolutely love how much this guy pisses people off. I can't speak to the veracity of his many claims, but I'm loving the ride.
Bojji
Gold Member
How to tell me you don't know what you're looking at without directly saying you don't know what you're looking at
Fox was ridiculously good for its time (2013).
It was fantastic for PS3 gen, underwhelming for PS4 gen.
Physiognomonics
Member
I agree. MGS5 was open-world (kind of empty but with tons of complex systems) 1080p (no reconstruction) locked 60fps with realistic lighting and on base PS4. And this feat has never been reproduced on that machine. Still top 5 most impressive title there.
MGS5 was 600p-ish, 20fps on PS3. An abomination to the eyes. I played both PS3 and PS4 game and the PS4 is truely next-gen compared to PS3.
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
I meant when it comes to graphics quality and features on PS3 class hardware.
But for PS4 gen: game is fucking empty map with shit vegetation, textures, water, barely any buildings and light sources. GZ was impressive but MGS5 is not... No wonder it can run 60fps on jaguar when there is nothing to render.
Last edited:
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
How to tell me you don't know what you're looking at without directly saying you don't know what you're looking at
Fox was ridiculously good for its time (2013).
Nostalgia goggles. Character models looked good, it's what Kojima does well, but everything else was just absolute drab looking. More than 70% of the game was just rocks, a bunch of bushes and small bases that lacked any detail whatsoever. This is the year were we got Witcher 3 which completely shits on MGSV visually. I think we also got Arkham Knight as well? Another visual masterpiece.
Last edited:
Anchovie123
Member
For the time it was great but the engine is clearly dated by todays standards especially in GI / AO department where areas look incorrectly lighted/shaded (Theres a "glow" where areas should be darker or show bounce lighting)
The game clearly uses a low triangle count for all scenes and models witch is probably a large contributor to its great performance.
Also find it funny that every time this guy shits on TAA he shows scenes that have jagged edges everywhere
Id rather have blur then jaggies any day of the week, not to mention the dozen other benefits TAA has brought.
The game clearly uses a low triangle count for all scenes and models witch is probably a large contributor to its great performance.
Also find it funny that every time this guy shits on TAA he shows scenes that have jagged edges everywhere
Id rather have blur then jaggies any day of the week, not to mention the dozen other benefits TAA has brought.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Do people still not understand the trade off between fidelity and framerate.
Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight are both 30fps games on PS4. Witcher 3 if I recall correctly even struggles to hit that in many places.
Last edited:
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
I never disregarded its performance tho. It's literally my first post in this thread. I am only talking about visuals. Ofc if you cut all the detail in Witcher 3 it can look and run similar to MGS5. There's always a need for balance, some choose visuals others choose performance. There was no engine back then that ran amazingly well and looked amazingly well, which was my point. MGS5 ran great, but other than that, it looked pretty fucking stale. Nice character models tho.
EDIT: also CDPR suck at console optimization, unlike Kojima. They were and most likely still are PC focused. All their console ports are...well you know how CP2077 was.
Last edited:
VulcanRaven
Member
Are they? MGSV looks good but the open-world does look dated often. Its basically a PS3 game because it had to work on last-gen consoles.
Last edited:
CentralScrutinizer
Member
I would've loved to see how that engine would've evolved. It looked and ran fantastic back then. If only Kojima wasn't shit canned for pissing away Konami's money; we'd be in a much better "gaming landscape".
At that time I thought it looked and ran amazing. I had just upgraded to a PS4 and this was the game that I got with it. Solid 60fps and 1080p too.
Grildon Tundy
Member
People saying MGS V looks like garbage or that it looks great must be focused on different things.
I thought the lighting was impressive, which I'm finding is what I focus on. Minecraft with Ray Tracing looks beautiful, for example.
I thought the lighting was impressive, which I'm finding is what I focus on. Minecraft with Ray Tracing looks beautiful, for example.
Bojji
Gold Member
I played PC version (R9 290) and wasn't impressed at all, especially compared to Ground Zeroes opening mission that looked great. I was waiting for missions like that in TPP and... it never happened. Engine had potential but it was never used, and as I said it was PS3 gen based, that's why it was 60fps on PS4.
VulcanRaven
Member
It feels great because it runs in 60fps but it doesn't look that amazing. There are moments when it looks very good though.
diffusionx
Gold Member
The engine designers build it out depending on the needs of the games they want to make (which is why UE5 is a piece of shit, it's trying to be literally everything for everyone) and what they choose to focus on. I thought MGS5 looked nice myself for a 60fps open world game on the platform. The other 60fps games on PS4 were mostly old ps3 ports.
The real problem with evaluating this particular technology is that it was only used for one game, but I think it was pretty successful at what it was trying to do and the performance level it had. We don't know what a 30fps game based on this tech would have looked like.
Perrott
Member
Dated? How so? Ubisoft subsequent open-world tactical action Ghost Recon games from 2017 and 2019, respectively, both failed to live up to the pristine well-roundedness of The Phantom Pain's visual package, one which was able to scale across generations -- as well as handhelds, through a 1:1 PSVITA port that was shelved due to market conditions -- without compromising on it's groundbreaking PBR pipeline and striking cinematic look -- all while delivering the native 1080p/60fps dream on PS4.
Not to mention the timeless art direction that has made the game age like wine, with an iconic, beautiful look that will forever stand the test of time, just as seen with Half-Life 2.
And that's all without getting into how P.T. gives Resident Evil Requiem a run for it's money.
Battlefront 2 was another game that looked amazing and yet still ran at 60fps on PS4. You just don't seem to get that combination nowadays.
VulcanRaven
Member
Textures look very low resolution often in the open-world. Its not suprising because of 60fps and it was made so it could also work on last-gen consoles. It doesn't seem a huge leap from MGS4 if you compare the PS3 versions.
Honestly I have always thought that Half-Life 2 look a bit boring.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The best part about the engine was that it afforded them to make an amazing open world stealth sandbox while retaining a damn near silky smooth 60fps.
The character models also still look pretty good, even today.
Played through the game again, after almost a decade, earlier this year and logged my chronicles in the Currently Playing thread. Some pis from there:
The character models also still look pretty good, even today.
Played through the game again, after almost a decade, earlier this year and logged my chronicles in the Currently Playing thread. Some pis from there:
Perrott
Member
Well, here we have Avowed, boasting 4K textures and the entire UE5 feature-set.
Game looks like a fucking joke, as if some dude in his basement had just made one of those "What would Neverwinter Nights look like in UE5?" videos.
On the other hand, here are some screenshots from a dirty YouTube upload of a trailer that Phil Spencer must have encoded with his dick before the Xbox One E3 reveal where it was shown:
Does it really need any more fidelity to convey the atmosphere and tone that they were shooting for? And would've been worth it at the cost of compromising performance and image quality alike?
Rocinante618
Member
MGSV has alright graphics but incredible KBM controls. Super responsive, quick and fluid af. Combined with that optimized engine, stable frames it feels fantastic to play. Again, the responsive controls are the real treat here not graphics.
Very few new titles have KBM controls as good as MGSV (maybe Division 2, maybe RE2/3/4, maaaybe TLoU2).
Very few new titles have KBM controls as good as MGSV (maybe Division 2, maybe RE2/3/4, maaaybe TLoU2).
Perrott
Member
Kojima's "PS3 game" blowing flagship 2025 Capcom release Monster Hunter Wilds out of the water:PC version of GZ and MGSV, max settings (above console version):
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Well, here we have Avowed, boasting 4K textures and the entire UE5 feature-set.
Game looks like a fucking joke, as if some dude in his basement had just made one of those "What would Neverwinter Nights look like in UE5?" videos.
How to tell someone didn't play avowed on PC max without saying they didn't play it. What a shit take.
Avowed is stunning in UE5, screenshots barely do it justice, in motion with lumen and quality PBR surfaces it's clearly above even most UE5 implementations.
My own captures, no photo mode
It's very much PoE world of Eora in 3D as can be.
Last edited:
Bojji
Gold Member
Kojima's "PS3 game" blowing flagship 2025 Capcom release Monster Hunter Wilds out of the water:
Yeah but MH always looked like shit, from first trailers. There are games that are compute heavy for no reason, MH is among them.
Embearded
Member
As much as i love Kojima, i think we can agree Monster Hunter looks like shit more than MGSV looks amazing.Kojima's "PS3 game" blowing flagship 2025 Capcom release Monster Hunter Wilds out of the water:
It's a shame that so much effort snd energy only gave us MGSV. Konami truly fucked up enormously back then.
kiphalfton
Member
xanaum
Member
This engine is pure Kojima perfectionism. The lighting, the gorgeous textures even in an open world, the weather physics, environmental movement, character animations, everything is impressive.
I don't think the game's "emptiness" devalues the engine. That always felt more like a design choice forced by having to run on the PS3. If it had been PS4-only, I can easily imagine something closer to Ghost Recon Wildlands, cities with people, a more alive world. A game clearly inspired by MGSV, almost a spiritual successor, could have shown how far that direction could really go.
MGSV already felt almost impossible to run on PS3, but the real glow-up was on PC. Back in 2015, maxing everything out felt like a Crysis 2007 moment. It's honestly a shame we never got a remastered version for PS5. Native 4K at 120fps on console would've been absolutely insane.
I don't think the game's "emptiness" devalues the engine. That always felt more like a design choice forced by having to run on the PS3. If it had been PS4-only, I can easily imagine something closer to Ghost Recon Wildlands, cities with people, a more alive world. A game clearly inspired by MGSV, almost a spiritual successor, could have shown how far that direction could really go.
MGSV already felt almost impossible to run on PS3, but the real glow-up was on PC. Back in 2015, maxing everything out felt like a Crysis 2007 moment. It's honestly a shame we never got a remastered version for PS5. Native 4K at 120fps on console would've been absolutely insane.
Bojji
Gold Member
Crysis? Have you played the same MGS5? You can play it in 4k 120fps on pc and there is still nothing impressive on display.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Why are people talking about Kojima when the subject is an engine, and its technical merits ?
If people want to personalize it, at least talk about Julien Merceron who was the lead architect.
Bottom line is it was an extremely versatile, very efficient, multi-platform engine for its time. It slightly pre-dates UE4 and is inarguably superior to UE3.x in that it didn't require tons of customization not to run like a complete bag of shit on PS3.
It was well known across the industry that UE's memory management had severe issues on PS3, which is why literally every game that runs well on that platform will have a huge list of credits for engine programmers - pretty much obviating the value of using a middleware solution!
Now you might argue that because these issues weren't present on 360 or PC (UE3's original test case being Gears Of War) it shouldn't be factored in. But given how many titles used that engine over the generation and required input and patching from the entire (professional) community to work around on multi-platform workflows, that the literal first iteration of Fox came out so well on all fronts is an impressive achievement. Particularly as MGSV's design requires an unusually comprehensive range of abilities.
If people want to personalize it, at least talk about Julien Merceron who was the lead architect.
Bottom line is it was an extremely versatile, very efficient, multi-platform engine for its time. It slightly pre-dates UE4 and is inarguably superior to UE3.x in that it didn't require tons of customization not to run like a complete bag of shit on PS3.
It was well known across the industry that UE's memory management had severe issues on PS3, which is why literally every game that runs well on that platform will have a huge list of credits for engine programmers - pretty much obviating the value of using a middleware solution!
Now you might argue that because these issues weren't present on 360 or PC (UE3's original test case being Gears Of War) it shouldn't be factored in. But given how many titles used that engine over the generation and required input and patching from the entire (professional) community to work around on multi-platform workflows, that the literal first iteration of Fox came out so well on all fronts is an impressive achievement. Particularly as MGSV's design requires an unusually comprehensive range of abilities.
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
in 20 years there will be people here who will say, "yeah, UE5 was amazing and well optimized compared to now". Every decade, these talks always show up or with every new engine. Cryengine was insane visually and it redefined graphics for the next generations, as well as being a severely unoptimized engine and look at it now, it's actually more optimized than almost all other engines while looking quite good. I don't like UE5 either, but it's retarded to go back and say, well "yeah UE 3.5 looks and runs much better" or some shit like that. Fox engine is pretty much dead. No idea why we're even talking about it. It did not set itself apart back then, nor will anyone bring it back. I'd rather talk about how stupid it is that many devs are avoiding cryengine for example.
Last edited:
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Well, here we have Avowed, boasting 4K textures and the entire UE5 feature-set.
Game looks like a fucking joke, as if some dude in his basement had just made one of those "What would Neverwinter Nights look like in UE5?" videos.
On the other hand, here are some screenshots from a dirty YouTube upload of a trailer that Phil Spencer must have encoded with his dick before the Xbox One E3 reveal where it was shown:
Does it really need any more fidelity to convey the atmosphere and tone that they were shooting for? And would've been worth it at the cost of compromising performance and image quality alike?
What? Even your shitty cherry-picked shot of Avowed looks way better than your MGS4 shots.
Meanwhile, here's what Avowed actually looks like (shots of my actual playthrough):
Last edited:
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
When you don't hear a word I say
As the talking goes, it's a one-way flow
No fault, no blame
Has the memory gone? Are you feelin' numb?
And have I become invisible?
As the talking goes, it's a one-way flow
No fault, no blame
Has the memory gone? Are you feelin' numb?
And have I become invisible?
bender
What time is it?
Nostalgia goggles. Character models looked good, it's what Kojima does well, but everything else was just absolute drab looking. More than 70% of the game was just rocks, a bunch of bushes and small bases that lacked any detail whatsoever. This is the year were we got Witcher 3 which completely shits on MGSV visually. I think we also got Arkham Knight as well? Another visual masterpiece.
Mostly agree, but I think you also have to look at framerate targets and stability which would be another nod towards MGS4 over Witcher 3. I'd also take MGS4's drab visuals over Witcher's mundane open world design and game play, but I guess that's outside of the scope of this conversation.
diffusionx
Gold Member
No, no one will say that lol.
The reason why devs are all signing up for UE5 is because it's a much bigger pool of candidates to draw from. If you want to use CryEngine and you want to staff up you need to look for people who have some CryEngine experience. It's much less people and you probably have to pay more.
Last edited:
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
diffusionx
Gold Member
hoping i'll be dead by then
but it costs more, either in time or money