Faiblesse Des Sens Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Also I find it funny in one thread FDS is mocking the quality of youtube and facebook for video games, yet here is fine with the limit. YTs issue isn't resolution (there's some stuff that's even higher than 1080p) it's the insanely terrible compression it uses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 They're not not-supporting every conceivable resolution someone might have, they're purposely blocking it off at 1080p. Their "Recommended specs" are the absolute hard limit and only because they've set it to that. there's no rhyme nor reason behind the games inability to go beyond that except the devs just choosing to arbitrarily limit it to that for whatever reason. And as already mentioned, that "small percentage" works out about 3 million folks, which is no small figure. Why not cap it to 720p monitors then that way pretty much everyone on Steam can play the game. They've clearly not just done a straight port of the game, they've specifically worked on it to make use of some high end rigs so that they can display more parts on the screen, run at 60fps, but then they've gone and gimped it so it won't work on higher end monitors. What a stupid decision. The only reason I can think of their choice to pick this arbitrary upper limit is not wanting to surpass the current stock of consoles (especially as their benefactor here is still mostly a console dev and does have MGSV meant to be looking good and show off their tech), which is utter bullshit and if that would be the case that definitely needs nipping in the bud, way way too early into this new generation to have it dragging everything else down to it's level. I would assume that's the limit because they don't want to have to re-do the textures and include even higher res ones than the ones they were already using. Though I can see something like that being included further down the line if they take time to patch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Why not cap it to 720p monitors then that way pretty much everyone on Steam can play the game. They've clearly not just done a straight port of the game, they've specifically worked on it to make use of some high end rigs so that they can display more parts on the screen, run at 60fps, but then they've gone and gimped it so it won't work on higher end monitors. What a stupid decision. Holy shit, man, are you for real? How the hell will it "not work" on high-end monitors? Do you have some weird monitor where games crash if they're not running at native res? You must hate smaller indie games that lack proper resolution options... The only reason I can think of their choice to pick this arbitrary upper limit is not wanting to surpass the current stock of consoles (especially as their benefactor here is still mostly a console dev and does have MGSV meant to be looking good and show off their tech), which is utter bullshit and if that would be the case that definitely needs nipping in the bud, way way too early into this new generation to have it dragging everything else down to it's level. Yeah, I'm sure their intention is to not make current-gen systems look bad by putting out a version of the game that runs better than it did on those systems. Nevermind that those systems are already outdated and have successors out. Edited December 21, 2013 by FLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 I would assume that's the limit because they don't want to have to re-do the textures and include even higher res ones than the ones they were already using. Though I can see something like that being included further down the line if they take time to patch it. When building 3D models best practice is to build high res textures first then scale them down to fit. It's a lot easier to work that way, so that won't be an issue they'll be having, certainly nothing that'd force the games resolution to be limited. Holy shit, man, are you for real? How the hell will it "not work" on high-end monitors? Do you have some weird monitor where games crash if they're not running at native res? You must hate smaller indie games that lack proper resolution options... Okay we'll scale back to basics. On a PC, and also on consoles but it's not really user choosable, games run at an "internal resolution", and ideally this matches the "native resolution" of the monitor (though you can also use a technique called "downsampling" to push the internal resolution beyond that of the monitor leading to even more clarity in your images and as an alternative to AA). If the internal resolution is lower than that of the monitor itself, as is common in console games (though you'd have thought would be fixed this gen) then it gets upsampled, leading to blurry fuzziness depending on the magnitude of difference between the internal resolution and what it's being displayed at. Most indie games tend to be resolution agnostic, can't really put the effort into making sure that nothing above a certain screen size won't work. Just run in "full screen" and voila. Yeah, I'm sure their intention is to not make current-gen systems look bad by putting out a version of the game that runs better than it did on those systems. Nevermind that those systems are already outdated and have successors out. Okay I had to double check, and I definitely did write "current consoles" and "MGSV". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Yes, it leads to fuzziness, but it still works. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Yeah, I know how it works. Like I said, it's not optimal. You won't hear me claim that it is. But 1080p is not a bad resolution to be locked at. It sure as hell beats 720p or anything in-between. I mean, shit, most next-gen launch titles can't even do proper 1080p. As for the other part, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Just to be clear, when you say "current" anything I still think of the PS3/360. And to add to the confusion, MGSV is a cross-gen title. Besides, I'm not sure how a PS3 game running on PC could really put next-gen stuff to shame. It's not like a resolution bump and increased framerate will make it look THAT drastically better. So it seems like a really strange thing to accuse them of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Sure being locked at 720p would be even worse, but you can at least see why right? Not sure why the logic that being locked to 720p is bad doesn't apply to being locked to 1080p as well? And also it's not on consoles where the consoles and TV are 1080p, but on PC where as is the main point of this, monitors and GPUs go well in excess of 1080p. Hence most games not going to the effort of locking you to a specific resolution. Also for the second part just to clarify when I say "current gen" I'm talking about the current generation of consoles, 8th gen, aka the Xbox One, Playstation 4 and Wii U. Which would be where the new tech. Fox Engine, for MGSV is being shown off for. Anyway that's just thrown out as a random theory,but until they say specifically why they locked it to a max of 1080p random theories will be all we'll have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Every game I've ever used has limits as to what resolutions it supports, it doesn't just let you type in a box whatever you want your res to be (at least not without editing config files). So given that games do have limits as to what resolutions they support, people are just saying 1080p doesn't seem like an unreasonable one. *Edit* - I wish they would let you put it whatever res you wanted, but given that no game does that it seems like an unreasonable expectation. Edited December 21, 2013 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) Don't get me wrong, any resolution lock is inherently bad. I just think that as far as resolution locks go, this one does not seem that bad to me. It's locked at the resolution the vast majority of people would be playing at anyway. This will definitely cause the game to age horribly fast, which sucks. But in the current gaming landscape I feel that if you have to lock the resolution, then 1080p is a perfectly reasonable one to lock it to. Also, I don't think we need random theories at all. Or rather, if we must come up with one, I'd be more inclined to go with something a little less "paranoid", for lack of a better word. The game was built for consoles and I wouldn't be surprised if they never anticipated porting it to PC at the time. Going higher than 1080p could've caused all kinds of issues and fixing those would've added development time and costs they couldn't afford. Seems a tad more plausible to me. edit: *Edit* - I wish they would let you put it whatever res you wanted, but given that no game does that it seems like an unreasonable expectation. Would such a thing even be feasible? I'm sure it could work for some games but I kinda feel like most games would just break if you decided to input some random numbers they're not prepared to render at. Edited December 21, 2013 by FLD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 When building 3D models best practice is to build high res textures first then scale them down to fit. It's a lot easier to work that way, so that won't be an issue they'll be having, certainly nothing that'd force the games resolution to be limited. If they don't just use the highest quality possible people will bitch at 1440p textures not being high-res enough. People will complain that they cant use textures that are higher than their resolution. As you keep proving PC gamers will always find something to bitch about. People don't realize that if you want PC gaming to get more attention then quit giving it such negative attention in the first place. You make the entire community look like assholes and the video game community already has enough issues with image as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Don't get me wrong, any resolution lock is inherently bad. I just think that as far as resolution locks go, this one does not seem that bad to me. It's locked at the resolution the vast majority of people would be playing at anyway. This will definitely cause the game to age horribly fast, which sucks. But in the current gaming landscape I feel that if you have to lock the resolution, then 1080p is a perfectly reasonable one to lock it to.Spo at least there's an agreement on it being bad, I guess the sticking point being where the limit is really. Also, I don't think we need random theories at all. Or rather, if we must come up with one, I'd be more inclined to go with something a little less "paranoid", for lack of a better word. The game was built for consoles and I wouldn't be surprised if they never anticipated porting it to PC at the time. Going higher than 1080p could've caused all kinds of issues and fixing those would've added development time and costs they couldn't afford. Seems a tad more plausible to me.I apologize and reinforce I was just throwing out random theories, I'm 95% certain this is likely not the case, I'm not one to go for (most) conspiracy theories like this, but at the moment I honestly can't think of any legitimate reason to limit the game. JP Kellams, the guy who'll buy beers for Durante, seems to be very honestly evangelizing PC development but the game having region locks and res locks seems a bit counter to "we love PC and the advantages it brings". Region locks at least is a Konami thing, and in fact he has pointed some folks to Konami's account when they ask about the res lock as well as the region lock. Like most gaming things unless someone has a wife we'll likely never know. @FDS: Textures don't tend to come at a resolution, at least not at a monitor-matching resolution. They're usually built in squares to the power of two (so 8*8, 16*16, 128*128, 1024*1024, you get the idea). And I'm pretty sure at 1440p the lower resolution outputted by the game would far outweigh the difference between textures given a 1440p is 3.6 megapixels versus 1080ps 2megapixels. There's a considerable jump there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxicitizen Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 Oh, yeah definitely. I'm okay with this particular case given the details and context but that's not to say I have no problem with resolution locks in general. If it was locked at 720p that'd be another story entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 I wish I wasnt such a slave to the MGS series. $30 for Ground Zeroes is a really hard pill to swallow for me. Im usually the first guy to champion quantity over quantity, but this just seems way too expensive for 2 hours of game. In comparison, TLoU is about the same length, was amazing as hell(probably the best dlc Ive ever played) and was half the price of GZ. I know that dlc tends to be cheap because of reused assets, mostly because developers already have the engine done with, but this is kind of the same situation with GZ. Theyre going to reuse it to make Phantom Pain. Theyre going to make their $60 off their work eventually. This is pretty much the completely opposite of what other games do - dlc first, main game later. So yeah. I dunno. And its really not about the money to me personally as it is about not wanting to encourage this sort of thing. Just feels wrong. The funny thing is that Kojima has said that he didnt want to release GZ separately, but MGS fans dont want to wait another year or 2 for more MGS. So he decided to split it and offer GZ sooner. I suppose thats the price to pay for super fans of the series. Honestly, if youre not cool with this whole thing, just pretend this didnt come out and purchase it when it goes on sale, probably when PP is about to come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Replay value. The 2 hour thing has repeatedly said to only be a small fraction of what you can do in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madbassman39 Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 Is Ground Zeroes an open world game or is that just Phantom Pain? Clearly I'm not keeping up with the MGS franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted March 12, 2014 Report Share Posted March 12, 2014 GZ is open world just a smaller one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 Apparently there isnt a lot of story either. I would kill for hours long cutscenes in this game. Has anyone even said if the timer counts the cutscenes? Is the game 1 and a half to 2 hours WITH or without cutscenes? If its with...ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 I'm just going to walk in expecting MGSV: The Demo with one hour of gameplay and one hour of cutscenes. $20 for the download PS3 version makes this doable if I enjoy my time and get compelled to replay the game multiple times. If I can do that with South Park, then surely I can do it with Ground Zero... besides, its Big Boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 So some early reviews are saying Ground Zeroes has one mission that lasts for 25 minutes. After you beat it you unlock four or five side missions that last about 15 minutes each. As much as I love Metal Gear, I just can't justify paying even 30 dollars for that. If you do, even after I tell you this, then I'm sorry but you are a sucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 16, 2014 Report Share Posted March 16, 2014 That sounds a hell of a lot smaller than most story /DLCs/ I've played. And I'm usually reluctant to pay $15 for those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 I'll be the noble sacrifice so I may let you all know just how long it takes me on Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 So some early reviews are saying Ground Zeroes has one mission that lasts for 25 minutes. After you beat it you unlock four or five side missions that last about 15 minutes each. As much as I love Metal Gear, I just can't justify paying even 30 dollars for that. If you do, even after I tell you this, then I'm sorry but you are a sucker. 25 minutes if you rush through and don't take your time to explore or anything? I'm going to wait for more people to get their hands on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 Im totally a sucker for Metal Gear. ive already made up my mind and Im totally getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) PS3 download is only 1.8 GB. So yeah, this will be short. Edit: On my way to rescue the princess, I went to become sniper alley and drove an IFV where I murdered everybody in the base, along with their ghosts because they all failed to realize chucking a grenade on my position would end me. Well, until the end of the standoff that is. Hopefully hard will be hard. Overall... looking at the side-ops... this shit is VR Mission, Big Boss style. There is a fifth side ops that isn't unlocked so I think that one might have some more juicy info. On the face of it, nice game but the content is lacking for sure. Do I regret purchasing it? No. I'm gonna tear the missions a new one since there seems to be a bunch of nooks and crannies that I haven't touched yet. Phantom Pain should be really good if they bump up the size of the map to what we all think it is. Ground Zeroes, Ground Works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T--JS16uSV8 Time to find all the tapes. The meat of the story is in them. Oh yeah, tossing people into the ocean is great fun... Edited March 18, 2014 by MaliciousH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I really hope they get rid of most of the Peace Walker references in the Phantom Pain. Hopefully Ground Zeroes closes that chapter up. I personally didnt like the story and I dont think a lot of people have played it. The only worthwhile things it did is introduce 2 new characters(Huey, Strangelove) and one returning(Miller). They need to keep those and let go of everything else. Dont retcon it, but dont make it important to PP. If anything, I hope there's a lot of MGS3 story extensions here. It needs to be more of a sequel to that game than PW. Theres no reason not to since thats everyones favorite. It'd be a million times more shocking and interesting to see Volgin return than fucking HOT COLDMAN. THATS HIS FUCKING NAME. HOT. COLDMAN. Or that guy with the robot arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.