# EDGE: Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D looks better than the HD versio



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

Coming from EDGE


> Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D’s visuals have gotten a lot of flack ever since Konami shared the first screenshots and footage of the game. Fans criticized its seemingly textures, poor frame rate, and overall disappointing graphics.
> In the end, it seems that Kojima Productions was able to pull things together. Details have started to emerge from EDGE’s review of Snake Eater 3D, and the magazine was apparently more than impressed with the studio’s work on the title’s visuals. EDGE went as far as to say that “the HD update doesn’t look as good as this portable treatment.”
> EDGE wrote in its review:
> *“Packed with detail, both in terms of it’s environments and mechanics, this is a game that pays back investment in spades. MGS3 is a moden classic – the tighest, smartest and most emotional journey in the series – and even the HD update doesn’t look as good as this portable treatment.”*
> EDGE gave Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater 3D an 8/10. You can find more scores from the magazine’s latest issue *here*.



Source


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Feb 19, 2012)

Since when are reviewer's opinions news?

Seriously you have hit a new low, stop looking for Pro-Nintendo Anti-Everyone-else news already.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

Antoligy said:


> Since when are reviewer's opinions news?



since there a controversy over the demo of some people  saying it looks good and other saying it does not seem how edge review the final retail game


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Antoligy said:
> 
> 
> > Since when are reviewer's opinions news?
> ...


Even then, not news. It's the kind of thing you'd quote in a post (reply), not the kind of thing you'd submit as news.


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

It doesn't even look better than the PS2 version in my opinion.....

Perhaps the User Submitted News section should be renamed User Submitted Opinion Pieces.


----------



## prowler (Feb 19, 2012)

I think until (and if) Digital Foundry does a face off, it's not worth posting.

That being said, I hope Digital Foundry compare the two, because jesus christ this is getting annoying.


----------



## yuyuyup (Feb 19, 2012)

of course it looks better; IT'S FUCKING THREE DEE


----------



## masterchan777 (Feb 19, 2012)

I respect all opinions and again I'm not talking about MGS3 which was, is, and will always be a masterpiece, I am talking about this very port of the game which I personally think is the worst. For someone who has never played MGS3 before, the 3DS port isn't by any means a bad game, but for those who did, this port is the worst, again, I'd invest in the PSVita version because MGS3 would look and play much better on the much more powerful PSVita than the weaker 3DS.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Antoligy said:
> 
> 
> > Since when are reviewer's opinions news?
> ...



Then its a point of discussion, not news. It's still just an excerpt from a review, aka opinion. I agree with Antoligy on this one, moving to General Gaming.


----------



## Eerpow (Feb 19, 2012)

masterchan777 said:


> I respect all opinions and again I'm not talking about MGS3 which was, is, and will always be a masterpiece, I am talking about this very port of the game which I personally think is the worst. For someone who has never played MGS3 before, the 3DS port isn't by any means a bad game, but for those who did, this port is the worst, again, I'd invest in the PSVita version because MGS3 would look and play much better on the much more powerful PSVita than the weaker 3DS.


I wouldn't agree that the game has issues because of the hardware it's running on, the problem lies with how poorly Konami optimized it.
And to be honest, I don't think the hardware difference is as big of a jump as between  PSP and DS, that's judging from what I've seen.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Antoligy said:
> ...



i am not against moving it but  

News: Newly received or noteworthy information,

is not the MGS3D a important information ? the whole debate  ect ?


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> is not the MGS3D a important information ? the whole debate  ect ?



No. It's just a random titbit.


----------



## X_XSlashX_X (Feb 19, 2012)

I really don't care which one looks better honestly. I rather have the better gameplay.


----------



## heartgold (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> It doesn't even look better than the PS2 version in my opinion.....
> 
> Perhaps the User Submitted News section should be renamed User Submitted Opinion Pieces.



This isn't a graphically game for the 3DS but hell it's better than the PS2 version in some aspects. It's just bad compared to the HD collections.

Ok I wouldn't say better,  they are about the same, its slightly better than PS2 version in some spots, worse in others due to lower resolution.


----------



## T-hug (Feb 19, 2012)

As much as I respect Edge and buy their mag, I have to disagree on this lol


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

ThugATRON said:


> As much as I respect Edge and buy their mag, I have to disagree on this lol



lest wait for the actual final retail release


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Feb 19, 2012)

This isn't much of a shocker as the HD collection is just a port in a higher resolution.



xist said:


> It doesn't even look better than the PS2 version in my opinion.....


Yeah uh, it's definitely better than the PS2 version even based off the demo.


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

soulx said:


> .Yeah uh, it's definitely better than the PS2 version even based off the demo.



In YOUR opinion. In mine i prefer the PS2's graphics overall. Each version has it's strength's but on balance the PS2's rendition of the game is more pleasing for me.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> soulx said:
> 
> 
> > .Yeah uh, it's definitely better than the PS2 version even based off the demo.
> ...


Fair enough. I suppose one area the PS2 version wins out on is the use of motion-blur to hide the low framerate in cutscenes.

But the game isn't even out yet so I can't really say.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> soulx said:
> 
> 
> > .Yeah uh, it's definitely better than the PS2 version even based off the demo.
> ...



yea some people just don't like better graphics ps2 version looks like shit  but i get you  i myself prefer the look of sim city 4 over the look of sim city 5 even do it have full 3d look


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Feb 19, 2012)

heartgold said:


> xist said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't even look better than the PS2 version in my opinion.....
> ...


Do you get all your opinions from Neogaf?



> Originally Posted by *SpaceBridge*:
> 
> 
> _So? Whats the verdict on visuals? As good as PS2? Equal to Peace Walker? Is all dialogue still voiced? One of my concerns from the demo was that the game seemed a little dark so I dunno if its ingame lighting or my 3DS._
> ...


http://www.neogaf.co...5&postcount=881


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> yea some people just don't like better graphics  i get you  i myself prefer the look of sim city 4 over the look of sim city 5 even do it have full 3d look



Your preference for inferior graphics justifies why you believe that this version of Snake Walker is the best. MGS3 3D does not have the BEST graphics for MGS3....unless you wear fanboy blinkers.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > yea some people just don't like better graphics  i get you  i myself prefer the look of sim city 4 over the look of sim city 5 even do it have full 3d look
> ...



no like i say sometimes

in this case MGS3D looks WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better that the ps2 game that one looks so ugly :S if you care about that soft of thing


----------



## heartgold (Feb 19, 2012)

soulx said:


> heartgold said:
> 
> 
> > xist said:
> ...


Strange, but nope. My views are based on the demo.

And what do you mean by all my opinions, please state where my other opinions have been based off neogaf!


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> in this case MGS3D looks WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better that the ps2 game that one looks so ugly :S if you care about that soft of thing



Yeah....no.


----------



## masterchan777 (Feb 19, 2012)

3DS port VS PSVita port of MGS3 could turn out to be like the NES port VS MSX2 of the first Metal Gear.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > in this case MGS3D looks WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better that the ps2 game that one looks so ugly :S if you care about that soft of thing
> ...



but i can see snake face so clear now the ps2 version looks like someone try to erase his face


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> but i can see snake face so clear now the ps2 version looks like someone try to erase his face



That's not the PS2's fault...you need your eyes tested.


----------



## Valwin (Feb 19, 2012)

xist said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > but i can see snake face so clear now the ps2 version looks like someone try to erase his face
> ...



next you gona tell me that MGS 1 looks better that MGS twin snakes


----------



## xist (Feb 19, 2012)

Valwin said:


> next you gona tell me that MGS 1 looks better that MGS twin snakes



No, because unlike the 3DS and PS2 each being better than the other in some aspects, Twin Snakes was remade to take advantage of the new hardware and as such looks better than the aging Playstation original. However, i'd still rather play the original MGS over Twin Snakes thanks to the tweaks that Twin Snakes brought to the gameplay and story and character aspects.


----------



## granville (Feb 19, 2012)

Snake's face looks slightly sharper in terms of texturing versus PS2, but that's about it, and even that is arguable. Everything else is about the same or downgraded. The game runs at a shitty framerate, and the draw distance for the grass is very small (it just pops into view when you're 5 feet away from it, plus it's less dense).

Here's a video from the retail version-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUoX2aQV9I

As you can see, the framerate is pretty darn bad. 20fps and lower, even dropping into what appears to be single digits around the 1:47 mark.


----------



## p1ngpong (Feb 19, 2012)

The PS2 version looks like garbage compared to the 3DS version. But the 3DS version looks nowhere near as good as the HD collection version.

Anyone who argues otherwise is talking shit.

End of.


----------



## xist (Feb 20, 2012)

p1ngpong said:


> The PS2 version looks like garbage compared to the 3DS version. But the 3DS version looks nowhere near as good as the HD collection version.
> 
> Anyone who argues otherwise is talking shit.
> 
> End of.



Equally,  unequivocally stating that the PS2 version is inferior (and looks like garbage) compared to the 3DS version is misinformed. Each version has strengths.


----------



## p1ngpong (Feb 20, 2012)

xist said:


> p1ngpong said:
> 
> 
> > The PS2 version looks like garbage compared to the 3DS version. But the 3DS version looks nowhere near as good as the HD collection version.
> ...



I have played all three versions in the last week, and I will tell you unequivocally that the PS2 version looks like crap compared to the remakes. Don't try and spin one of your fail arguments with me over that.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Feb 20, 2012)

heartgold said:


> soulx said:
> 
> 
> > Do you get all your opinions from Neogaf?
> ...


 Nah, the two statements are too identical to be a coincidience. But whatever.

You can't deny that you have an affinity to Neogaf.


heartgold said:


> Anyway someone at neogaf says Nintendo is rendering the games at 2x internally 480x320 then downscaling to 360x240 with bilinear





heartgold said:


> Header slightly copied from neogaf coz I like it.





heartgold said:


> (Translated by Neogaf)


----------



## granville (Feb 20, 2012)

p1ngpong said:


> The PS2 version looks like garbage compared to the 3DS version. But the 3DS version looks nowhere near as good as the HD collection version.
> 
> Anyone who argues otherwise is talking shit.
> 
> End of.


I argue otherwise.  3ds version has a couple of improvements, but the game really chugs trying to run itself.  Ps2 version looks a bit better overall imo. If the 3DS version ran as well as the original then I might agree.  What are you seeing that I don't? The only improvement I'm seeing are with Snakes face textures... Character models and environments seem to be the same, and textures are also about the same. No improved lighting effects either. I'm failing to see any overall visual improvement that can compensate for the retched slowdown and pop-in grass. Sorry bro, i'm not trying to piss you off or anything but i'm siding with the naysayers in this case. HD Collection > PS2 > 3DS in terms of graphics unless someone can tell me what i'm missing that skyrockets the 3DS version over the PS2 graphically. I've seen the comparison pics of Snake's face, but i'm looking at the whole game overall, not just a single retextured face.


----------



## xist (Feb 20, 2012)

p1ngpong said:


> I have played all three versions in the last week, and I will tell you unequivocally that the PS2 version looks like crap compared to the remakes. Don't try and spin one of your fail arguments with me over that.



Don't try and tell me what i'm doing. Of every opinion i've read thus far on various different forums, and even looking at the graphics for myself, your opinion seems to be the only one that paints the PS2 as garbage compared to the 3DS. At this point that view seems to be far in the minority making it unlikely to be just talking "shit". I'm not beyond believeing that the final release will address some issues but at the moment i can't see that the 3DS version is a superlative edition.


----------



## heartgold (Feb 20, 2012)

soulx said:


> heartgold said:
> 
> 
> > soulx said:
> ...


And...ive given them credit when it's due. Lol


----------



## T-hug (Feb 20, 2012)

masterchan777 said:


> 3DS port VS PSVita port of MGS3 could turn out to be like the NES port VS MSX2 of the first Metal Gear.



I will be getting the Vita version as soon as it hits.
Not sure if it has Peacewalker but I can grab that from PSN, probably will this Wednesday! Can't wait!!!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 20, 2012)

Valwin said:


> i am not against moving it but
> 
> News: Newly received or noteworthy information,
> 
> is not the MGS3D a important information ? the whole debate  ect ?



I'll just say that this isn't information or facts, it's opinion. I actually have a great quote from DiscostewSM on this



DiscostewSM said:


> Of what looks better is subjective. While the HD versions improve in some areas from the original (like increased resolution, cleaned-up/sharper textures, etc), the 3DS version improves in other areas (like the use of shaders, effects like 3D, re-done models/textures, etc). Both don't follow the same route for improvements, and some will like one route more than the other and vice versa.



Side note: I know I'm a few pages late but I haven't had a chance to respond since then.

EDIT: Ugh how do you tag people again?


----------



## granville (Feb 20, 2012)

Found another video of the retail game, though there's *SPOILERS FOR THE STORY AT ABOUT THE 6:40 MARK!!!*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUbZ_Xf_Wz4

Once again, you can spot major framerate dips. But they don't just happen in cutscenes, it drops even during gameplay.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Feb 20, 2012)

granville said:


> Found another video of the retail game, though there's *SPOILERS FOR THE STORY AT ABOUT THE 6:40 MARK!!!*
> 
> 
> Once again, you can spot major framerate dips. But they don't just happen in cutscenes, it drops even during gameplay.



I couldn't actually see any framerate dips. And it doesn't make much sense to gauge that with footage of that quality.


----------



## granville (Feb 20, 2012)

soulx said:


> I couldn't actually see any framerate dips. And it doesn't make much sense to gauge that with footage of that quality.


I spotted severe ones. Especially during the parts where Snake is coming in for a landing in the jungle, but also at the other parts. Framerate drops well into the teens and even single digits a couple of times. But the gameplay runs about 20-25 in general and drops from there.

If we were judging the core graphical assets, i'd agree with you about using low quality videos not being a good indicator. But we already know what the game looks like visually, offscreen footage is perfect for judging framerate when you're not sure how accurate direct feed videos are. Reason being that sometimes direct feed videos can exhibit framerate issues not present in the real game, due to lag present in the encoding process (Kingdom Hearts 3D is a good example, the trailers show framerate issues that aren't nearly as bad as the real game). But here you can see just how much the game lags due to the surrounding area where the video was taken. In this case, you can see that the surrounding room where the video was recording isn't choppy looking at all. The game is choppier than the environment it's filmed in, so you can see it's the game that lags. Assuming you can spot the choppiness (which is quite obvious to me, and pretty darn bad).

Honestly though, just go ahead and watch the videos IGN uploaded a couple of weeks ago if you insist on good quality. They're of the final game (not the demo) and are indicative of the framerate in the final game-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJh0i61Dn0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9-x9JGE-uc

You should be able to see how choppy the videos are. It's very noticeable and i'd say quite bad for the most part.


----------



## The Milkman (Feb 20, 2012)

I gotta admit even though this is the first 3D metal gear I played the mechanics are fucking awesome! And the 3D is great its so deep its like the first 3DS game I got that I actually had to turn the 3D down on. Who cares which looks better anyway? Arent true gamers supposed to look at gameplay first then HD and graphx?


----------



## Hadrian (Feb 20, 2012)

I played the demo the other day out of curiosity (I only like the MSX/GBC games) and meh lookswise, nothing bad at all its clean and all but definitely not as good as when it was The Naked Sample. 3DS could do a lot better. Also its the only 3DS game that could not bare to have on full 3D, could not focus right on it and it made my brain ache.

Controls nicely though, probably better than the PSP games but still it needs to be on a big screen. In my eyes, only make dedicated MGS games for handhelds, not ports. Loading is still as poor as the PS2 game, walk a bit...then it loads...walk some more...loads some more. You'd think they would have fixed that in this day and age.


----------



## granville (Feb 21, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I gotta admit even though this is the first 3D metal gear I played the mechanics are fucking awesome! And the 3D is great its so deep its like the first 3DS game I got that I actually had to turn the 3D down on. Who cares which looks better anyway? Arent true gamers supposed to look at gameplay first then HD and graphx?


I liked the 3D effects and the game is still fun, but i'm still highly critical of the framerate. Visually, the game is relatively unoffensive, pretty much the same as the PS2 version just with slight downgrades. The problem is that it looks worse than a game on far weaker hardware. And the framerate is a visual aspect that interferes with action and makes me dizzy and disoriented.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Feb 21, 2012)

granville said:


> Found another video of the retail game, though there's *SPOILERS FOR THE STORY AT ABOUT THE 6:40 MARK!!!*
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lUbZ_Xf_Wz4
> 
> Once again, you can spot major framerate dips. But they don't just happen in cutscenes, it drops even during gameplay.



To be fair, recording the game from a camera tends to make the framerate look worse than it currently is, since the refresh rates aren't in sync with each other.


----------



## The Milkman (Feb 21, 2012)

granville said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I gotta admit even though this is the first 3D metal gear I played the mechanics are fucking awesome! And the 3D is great its so deep its like the first 3DS game I got that I actually had to turn the 3D down on. Who cares which looks better anyway? Arent true gamers supposed to look at gameplay first then HD and graphx?
> ...


Are you overexaderating? I never understood what people ment about the graphics making them dizzy or sick, the worse I've ever seen have only hurt my eyes a little and made me squint while playing and the framerate does nothing more then annoy me a bit and since its only in cutscenes it doesnt bother me much.


----------



## granville (Feb 22, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Are you overexaderating? I never understood what people ment about the graphics making them dizzy or sick, the worse I've ever seen have only hurt my eyes a little and made me squint while playing and the framerate does nothing more then annoy me a bit and since its only in cutscenes it doesnt bother me much.


No, i'm being serious. I can sometimes forgive graphical downgrades (even if they're still unacceptable). But a choppy framerate that dips well below 20fps or so can really ruin a game for me if it's somewhat action heavy or requires quick reflexes or close examination of the environment. It makes me dizzy and disoriented to see a game run horribly. For something slow paced like an RPG it's at least not as bad, but it still annoys me and makes me somewhat ill.

Good example is Rayman DS. The framerate on that is so incredibly horrible that i cannot believe i managed to beat it. I used to own a shitty laptop back several years ago and trying to play modern-ish games (for the time) or intensive emulators on it was very miserable when the framerate would chug like mad. I don't mean it makes me sick as in i'm disgusted by it, i mean literally nausea and dizziness, even giving me a headache. Not something i can help. It pisses me off. At least poor textures and low polygon models don't make me physically ill. I'm not really picking on the game for that so much. An unsmooth and unstable framerate can literally make me sick however. I fully understand that this doesn't affect everyone, or even most people. But it's also a reason i can spot a poor framerate so easily.

I'm glad this only happens during the cutscenes, but it still made me somewhat dizzy and a bit sickly in my stomach to see it even in cinematics.


----------



## The Milkman (Feb 22, 2012)

granville said:


> I snippie the post



Ahhh ok, I just hear alot of people on the forums always saying a game makes them sick or something and I dont really understand why, Im still getting this game just because of the gameplay (I told ya first 3D metal gear ) I dont mind the dips as long as its only in cutscenes (I got a crap PC too Im used to cut scenes looking like crap but I hate lag in actual gameplay) thanks for the clarification.


----------

