Awesome lighting on MGSV:The Phantom Pain compared to Ground Zeroes

Not sure if everyone noticed the lighting has been improved a lot on 'The Phantom Pain' compared to 'Ground Zeroes'. Check out the screenshots comparison between Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
MrSec841751d ago

Doesn't just look like the lighting's been improved, it looks like everything to do with the visuals has been improved.

TheOneWhoIsTornApart1751d ago

I agree with this. You can tell they have improved the facial details and animations quite a bit as well. I can't wait until September 1st so we can finally play this masterpiece.

Concertoine1751d ago (Edited 1751d ago )

The fact that an open world game can look this good at 1080p 60fps proves it should be a standard. Im playing Bloodborne now and i love it, but i seriously wish the game targeted 60 instead of 30.

MrSec841750d ago (Edited 1750d ago )

I agree to some extent, but I would like to point out that Bloodborne is packing a substantial leap visually over what Metal Gear 5: Phantom Pain is handling, with more geometry from having to render a full city (buildings and all of the brick work in use), added particle effects, what seems like some higher resolution textures, chromatic effects, some advanced AI and more numerous enemies, with more details than the NPCs MGS5 has.

Visually Metal Gear isn't really comparable to Bloodborne.

Phantom Pain seems a lot sparser as far as what's packed into the environments, so that wouldn't require as much GPU time to render per frame.

Concertoine1750d ago (Edited 1750d ago )


I know. But the game could still look damn good running in 60 frames. I think the benefit of better visuals just isnt worth the worse framerate.

Its weird because back in the PS2 days before we could chase realism, 60 fps on first party games was more common.

Everyones talking about how the 1080p 60 fps thing was a pipe dream on PS4, but if people were more welcoming of less realistic graphics we would have better running games. Obviously some games could benefit from the higher visual fidelity over the framerate, but those are in the minority.

PersonMan1751d ago

It still doesn't look next-gen enough to me. I'm sure it's a great game, but speaking about graphics, it looks like a 1080p last gen game with higher res textures.

The lighting reminds me of Uncharted 3.

Crimzon1751d ago

Well considering the game has such a gigantic open world with genuinely good AI and deep gameplay mechanics running at 1080p/60fps, I'd say it's one of the most next-gen games out there.

It's definitely more impressive than some sub-1080p, 30fps, five-hour, linear corridor walking simulator with abysmal gameplay and AI that just so happens to have nice textures.

PersonMan1751d ago

I wasn't talking about gameplay, AI or frame rate now was I?

We're talking about GRAPHICS and specifically LIGHTING here.

Don't come into a graphics article and try to stand up for the game by saying it has advanced AI this and deep gameplay mechanics to try and justify why it doesn't look very good.

Everyone will start to realize how bad this game looks in just a couple of years when other games will blow it out of the water. Then you'll wonder why you ever thought it looked good in the first place.

Hell, even Killzone Shadowfall and Infamous Second Son are starting to look dated to me just because of Driveclub and The Order 1886. I can't wait to see how graphics improve even more than that (and I know they will).

Truth be told though, I'm just not that impressed by the look of this game. It still looks like a game that was caught between last gen hardware and next gen hardware. Games are really going to start shining when it's planned for next-gen from the beginning (like the Order 1886)

DarXyde1751d ago

I'd have to disagree.

I think it looks incredible and lifelike enough to warrant what we now call a current generation title. It also runs at 1080p and 60fps.

In its own right, I would say it's incredibly well done and one of the most worthy games of being called a PS4/Xbox One game. Yes, it's cross generation, but I have no doubt the differences between them will be staggering.

Articuno761751d ago (Edited 1751d ago )

"Truth be told though, I'm just not that impressed by the look of this game. It still looks like a game that was caught between last gen hardware and next gen hardware."

Erm... it is? Last I checked the PS3 and 360 versions were still on.

umair_s511751d ago

Lets wait and see the final build

Concertoine1751d ago

But the framerate is part of what makes it look good. The Order, Killzone and Infamous don't run at 60 fps, but MGS does.

Maybe if more devs weren't spending years bumpmapping the floor or drawing wall textures, they'd have time to develop decent gameplay mechanics or make it run at a stable framerate. But no, the modern gamer is conditioned to only get hyped based on graphics. So further down the over-budgeted, broken, mechanically lacking rabbit hole we go. But at least we look good doing it, right?

PersonMan1750d ago (Edited 1750d ago )

Again, you came into an article about the lighting in MGSV and you're talking about frame rate. Who the hell mentioned frame rate?

All I'm saying is... there are a LOT of better looking games than this. Also, the vegetation is kinda sparse in MGSV too, but I'd let that slide for better lighting.

Also, snake's face looks plastic.

ShinMaster1751d ago (Edited 1751d ago )

No. Compare MGSV with MGS4 or MGS:GZ from last gen.

Uncharted 3 wasn't an open world game.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1750d ago
Xof1751d ago

A metal gear game that looks pretty? I never would have guessed. I can't speak for MGS and earlier, but -every- subsequent game has literally set (and raised) the bar for visual quality.