A look at the difference 12 years can make in terms of expectations of graphics and how far developers have come with what they can and can’t include within our beloved video games.
Graphics are tied to gameplay in certain ways. It's easier to make a 3rd person stealth game with little destructibility look great than to make a FPS with large destructible levels and long line of sight look great.
"MGS2 didn't look that pretty 12 years ago"
You can't be serious.
EDIT - Ah I see that you mean he's playing the HD collection version, but that just makes the comparison even more meaningless.
I could argue that it's easier to push good graphics in a FPS or any first person perspective game than it is with a third person perspective game because it doesn't require complex animations of your caracter, and there's no need to implement a manual or automated camera-control scheme.
I remember MGS2, back when I didn't pay much attention to graphics and it was all about great game play and an original story. Miss those days a bit...
even twin snakes that came out three years later looked great, it advertised mgs2 graphics. I could argue mgs2 (2001) had the best graphics ever for its time.
EDIT: nvm, i don't wanna argue anything, but i was also highly impressed by: -Resident Evil Remake (2002) -Gears of War (2006) -Uncharted (2007),Crysis (2007) -MGS4 (2008) -Uncharted 2 (2009), Killzone 2 a few months earlier -Battlefield 3 (2011) -Uncharted 4??? (2014/5?) -Lets not forget ps1 and n64 had mgs1 and goldeneye
the hd version is just rendered at higher res, its the same beautiful game. Ill admit the ps2 resolution was pretty damn low, but it was good for the time and the hardware.
You must have been blind 12 years ago, and that's not being offensive, that's telling you the truth. MGS 2 and 3 were nominated for breaking the Ps2's graphical fidelity, same as GoW.
Yeah, I would have thought that MGS2 and MGS Ground Zeroes/Phantom Pain provided a far more relevant comparison.
Now I'll go read the article...
Edit: After watching I see that he was comparing the similar environments such as the interior of the ships and the underwater sequences but I still feel it was a pointless comparison.
I was thinking the same, or even games like IDK, GoW? I mean, MGS 2 did reach a new graphical fidelity within gaming, but so did games like Persona 3, and many others.
exactly what ziggurcat said POV is very important when you compare graphics, so just because both games have water and corridors in them doesn't make this a good comparison. whats next crash bandicoot vs next gen nba 2k, just because they both have jumping in them?
Um, wouldn't it make more sense to compare Battlefield 4 to Battlefield 1942, which came out at almost the same time as MGS2 and is, you know, IN THE SAME SERIES?
And the graphical impact that MGS2 made back when it came out is LEAPS AND BOUNDS over the one Battlefield 4 is making today. Battlefield 4 is just a prettier extension over the previous game. MGS2 was a "holy crap!" moment in both graphical quality and its ability to tell a story. Hell, every MGS game has been a major graphical leap from game to game compared to Battlefield. There is a significant jump in quality from MGS1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5.
" And the graphical impact that MGS2 made back when it came out is LEAPS AND BOUNDS over the one Battlefield 4 is making today. Battlefield 4 is just a prettier extension over the previous game. MGS2 was a "holy crap!" moment in both graphical quality and its ability to tell a story. Hell, every MGS game has been a major graphical leap from game to game compared to Battlefield. There is a significant jump in quality from MGS1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5"
Agreed. When looking at BF4 i just only think about 'cool graphics'. But when looking at MGS2, my brains only tell me one thing 'what a legendary game!'.
I would rather play bf4 then mgs, case in point people have different taste and I don't think you get the point of this video: comparing how did video game evolved on how they look.
I still don't get why bf4 look so ugly, is it console gameplay or?
I get the point, but my point is they focus on visuals and that doesn't mean everything. I rather play a game with a story and have fun than have a photo realistic game that I get bored with every 5 minutes. (not saying BF4 is that game, its just an example)
MGS 2 was the first MGS game i ever played, ironically on Xbox.. But i found it a great game and much more enjoyable than Halo.
I got stuck at the end (i'm guessing) on MGS 2, i forgot most of what happened but there were drone things you had to shoot out of the sky with a sniper rifle while somebody was escaping and for some reason i tried multiple times and never finished it.. always at a certain point too.
Sigh... I had many chances to play it, and I know it's a good game, but I haven't played it either. It was released during my "party" era. A gap in my video gaming history.
Really, a FPS compared to MGS??? lol
Up next; Vib Ribbon vs Killzone: Shadowfall.
why not compare it to battlefield 1942 that's 12 years old
Wouldn't it have been better to have compared MGS2 to MGSV?
It's not a bad comparison if you actually watch the video and get over the fact they are different genres.