Kojima says MGS3D is a remake created from scratch for 3DS

[Guild McCommunist]

I think everybody that's never made a game needs to stop talking.

That IS how the shit works.

Games ARE laggy and ugly when they're unfinished!

I mean jesus fucking christ guys.

You all might as well be going around laughing at einstein for claiming he's working on a single bomb that "can supposedly end a war with just two of them lol what bullshit bombs don't work like that".

I've seen plenty of game previews and read plenty of articles about hands on demos and none of them showed the same issues that MGS3D has. Regardless, you can't deny that the game graphically went from a very promising taste of what the 3DS could actually do with graphics to, well, shit.

 

[Rydian]

Regardless, you can't deny that the game graphically went from a very promising taste of what the 3DS could actually do with graphics to, well, shit.

And you know, the Duke Nukem Forever demos that were shown earlier in development looked great! Then it turns out those weren't of the actual game, they were mockups that the team made just so they'd have something to show the magazines and such.

And then you have companies that show their actual progress, like this appears to do...

What I'm TRYING to get you all to understand is that this is not a lie (the statement that it's a remake and not a port) because it looks bad. It looking and performing bad actually SUPPORTS the statement that it's a remake because THAT'S HOW THE SHIT WORKS.

 

[granville]

This is no remake. There's no need to get all defensive on the matter or tell people they need to have made their own game in order to tell when a game has no effort put into it. That wouldn't help prove whether it's a remake or not anyways. You can't see into a game's source code by watching a gameplay video or trailer. A programmer is in no better position than anyone else to say whether this is a remake or a port. So you're just left with your eyes and brain to logically deduce what's going on here.

The game went from promising and impressive, to ugly and unimpressive, and then to possibly very slightly less ugly but still unimpressive. The demo shown at E3 2010 was a real time one running on real 3DS hardware (you could even control the camera angle), not just CGI bullshots shown to magazines. The reason for its downgrade is likely money, and related to the HD collections hitting big systems. If this is a remake, it's the most logic defying one i've ever seen...

What I'm TRYING to get you all to understand is that this is not a lie (the statement that it's a remake and not a port) because it looks bad. It looking and performing bad actually SUPPORTS the statement that it's a remake because THAT'S HOW THE SHIT WORKS.

That statement makes no sense at all. MGS3D takes all the same assets from the PS2 version and just lowers the quality of them. This supports that it's a port, not a remake. Visuals and timing that mimick the original game so well that you can sync the two versions up in a video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdA_l5FSS18

There's just the general lower resolution textures, lower polygon models, and removed lighting effects as well as slowdown that accompanies the general poor port. There might have been some amount of logic to it being a remake had the assets been entirely unique, but they're the same assets, just with details removed. This is insanely easy to do and not what constitutes a remake. Even many multiplatform developed ports contain similar downgrades, and you don't see anyone claiming they're a remake of each other just because they contain downgraded assets. Had they actually optimized the game for the 3DS' hardware and remade it properly, it would be looking and playing FAR better than the PS2 version because it would be using the unique and more advanced GPU of the 3DS and not be limited to code that was specifically designed for PS2. Putting so much effort into remaking a game and then just taking all the same assets but downgrading everything about it visually would be a ridiculous and sad waste of time and effort. Especially if they took all that time and effort to precisely sync all the cutscenes up perfectly to exactly match the original game, yet chose not to improve the core engine and art assets first.

I liken it to Rayman DS or Rayman 3D (DS and 3DS respectively). Ubisoft could try to convince people that they're remakes. And you could use your same logic that they're remakes because they look and run worse than the original, but the simple fact is that they're both downgraded ports of Rayman 2. MGS3D suffers from some of the same porting problems as those, a clear lack of effort on optimizing the game properly for the hardware at hand.

And there's really not much in terms of progress between the times they've shown the game. It still has the same downgraded core assets which are extremely unlikely to improve. Low res textures, low polygon models, bad framerate. The former two are likely already finalized, what you'll get at best are perhaps some optimization in the speed of the game (though it needs some SERIOUS tuning here, we're talking single digit framerates during cutscenes). I doubt they'll make any use of the 3DS' advanced shader hardware seeing as they can't even get the game to run properly without them.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Even if Kojima is correct that they rebuilt the game from the ground up, it could still be said that it's still an inferior port in essence if not in substance.

@granville: I recant my last statement after reading your post. The video is very telling.

 

[Rydian]

This is no remake.

A head of the project says it's a remake, and it shows signs of using an engine and models that are in-progress (which I pointed out multiple times and even linked to comparisons about). Those things point to it being a remake.

There's no need to get all defensive on the matter

I get angry when people (like you) post without reading.

or tell people they need to have made their own game in order to tell when a game has no effort put into it.

The issue is you all are OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT SHIT YOU DO NOT KNOW because you have obviously never been on the other side of a large project like this.

You all are showing ignorance of MANY basic processes that take part when making games! I mean seriously, you all might as well be saying shit like "There's no way lemonade can have lemons in it, it tastes sweet instead of sour" and things like that.

That wouldn't help prove whether it's a remake or not anyways. You can't see into a game's source code by watching a gameplay video or trailer.

This goes both ways! So people on either side (remake or port) only have what's shown and some rough info about the development process to go on.

And what's shown all points to it being a remake. You all are misinterpreting things because you have no experience in how they fit into the processes involved!

A programmer is in no better position than anyone else to say whether this is a remake or a port.

What?!?!@gkl;jrsdfbg

"well just because you know how to make bombs doesn't mean you know more than any old joe off the street what kind of bomb was used to take down a building just by watching the footage of it exploding"

"well just because you're a doctor who performs surgery doesn't mean you know more than any old joe off the street what kind of procedure was done on somebody just from looking at the scars"

"well just because you're a bowling enthusiast doesn't mean you know more than any old joe off the street what the result of a bowling pitch was just by listening to the pins fall"

I mean, fucking seriously, it's a simple concept; the people who do something (either as a hobby, or a job) are likely to know a lot more about the process than the people who don't do it.

Is this a concept you don't understand!?!?

So you're just left with your eyes and brain to logically deduce what's going on here. The game went from promising and impressive, to ugly and unimpressive, and then to possibly very slightly less ugly but still unimpressive.

As I have been TRYING (in vain it seems) to hammer into the thick skulls of tempers, THE FIRST THING SHOWN WAS A TECH DEMO, IT WAS A SEPARATE PROJECT! THAT WAS A PORT!

THAT WAS A PORT. They said it was a tech demo, that was BEFORE this game/project was started!

THIS is NOT the same project! THIS is something DIFFERENT than the last thing!

The demo shown at E3 2010 was a real time one running on real 3DS hardware (you could even control the camera angle)

Yes, befitting it's purpose as a tech demo, to show off what the 3DS hardware could do when fed a developed engine and resources.

not just CGI bullshots shown to magazines.

I'm talking about the real-time demos of DNF that the team later stated were of a level that they created just for the show, not of one that existed in the game.

The reason for its downgrade is likely money, and related to the HD collections hitting big systems.

The "downgrade" did not exist.

These are TWO SEPARATE PRODUCTS.

If this is a remake, it's the most logic defying one i've ever seen...

Well then maybe you need to look into game development more. I've given links for people like you to explore, and it'd really benefit you to actually look them over!
bffsklbfsdjkn

Fucking christ I can't even go further through your post without punching somebody, it's so infuriating.



EDIT: Haha, looks like I chose a bad place to stop.
Where is that footage from, and what was stated when the release of it?

EDIT2: Also, I re-read what I said and want to make it clear that I don't think that releasing shots showing unfinished resources and laggy graphics is a good idea by the company, but it does point to it being a remake instead of a port, since that may be all they had to work with at the time.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Regardless, you can't deny that the game graphically went from a very promising taste of what the 3DS could actually do with graphics to, well, shit.

And you know, the Duke Nukem Forever demos that were shown earlier in development looked great! Then it turns out those weren't of the actual game, they were mockups that the team made just so they'd have something to show the magazines and such.

And then you have companies that show their actual progress, like this appears to do...

What I'm TRYING to get you all to understand is that this is not a lie (the statement that it's a remake and not a port) because it looks bad. It looking and performing bad actually SUPPORTS the statement that it's a remake because THAT'S HOW THE SHIT WORKS.

So... You're basically saying they could've made bad mock ups of the game to show off to magazines?

Like there's them being stupid and making a bad port, remake, whatever you want to call it, and then there's them being flat out retarded and making bad demos of a game for what reason? Hype mongering?

I wasn't even saying if it was a port or a remake, I was just acknowledging that the game looks really shitty.

 

[granville]

Rydian, you seriously need to calm the hell down. Stop insulting people, it's only showing immaturity on your part, hurting your argument, and degenerating this topic into a petty flame war. Drop that attitude entirely from here on out. Whether it be directed towards myself, Guild, or anyone else. If insults persist (from your or anyone else), i'll start removing posts and may lock this thread. Fair warning. You were showed respect by everyone in past posts, i suggest you do the same to others and keep the childish insults out of this.

I've given my argument on the matter and presented my logic, which i believe is completely fair as well as devoid of any bias. Your entire argument (when i disregard the insults) on this being a remake is dangling on it being downgraded and that Kojima said so. Kojima who btw is going to say whatever it takes to sell his product (or whatever he was told to say, or perhaps whatever he believes is true). We shouldn't believe EVERYTHING we hear, especially when the evidence points to the contrary to what was said. Unless of course the quote is essentially backed up (which in this case it certainly isn't).

I can name a huge number of multiplatform or ported games that received visuals and performance downgrades. It doesn't mean they are remakes just because they downgrade art assets. Using this logic, Final Fantasy XIII on 360 must have been a remake. Or the PS2 version of Sonic Heroes. I can name countless games that have received downgrades when ported over to another system. It always points more to downgraded port than remake. There are some exceptions, but even when there is, the gameplay is usually tweaked to an extent that you can immediately tell it's running under a different engine (like the GBA ports of Sonic the Hedgehog, Earthworm Jim 1/2, or Comix Zone).

The footage i posted was made shortly after E3, taking the 3DS version's trailer shown at the event and syncing it up with the PS2 version side by side. The game has not improved much since then, a trailer and demo was also shown at TGS showcasing nearly identical graphics (hard to tell whether they improved the lighting or if the color was just changed somewhat in the video encoding process). The same framerate issues persist. Nothing else about the game has improved any between builds. The art assets were always taken directly from the PS2 version and simply downgraded in a very general way. Textures were identical but saved as a lower resolution, and they simply removed some of the polygons on characters. That's very unlikely to change back to the way it was or improve any, seeing how they actually went out of their way to downgrade them in the first place instead of just using them as-is. It would be very counter productive to take assets, downgrade them, and then later upgrade them again.

You're right about the source code comment going either way. But the problem is your argument about downgrades indicating a remake, when that's just not true at all. Downgrades when coupled with a general similarity or near identical nature of a game indicate a downgraded port, not a remake. Your analogies comparing my comment about programmers to occupations such as bomb explosions, surgery scars, and bowling techniques don't help your case at all. They're what are known as straw man fallacies and don't address or refute my argument at all (nor are they relevant). Your examples all involve the ability to look at visual evidence and spot the procedure or object used to do it. Which would be fair if the game wasn't so 1:1 identical to the original that it was impossible to spot whether internal code was changed or not. The indication is that it was ported from the PS2 version though and wasn't completely rewritten. The only differences besides the visual downgrades are the tweaks to make use of new controls and the camera feature. Neither of which would be generally considered anything more than "enahanced port" material. You might as well argue Subsistance is a remake of MGS3 if you think those features are enough to call it that.

Your links don't bear any relevance to this argument- Whether this is a port or remake. We don't need to be told what a mock up or WIP are i'm sure.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

(like the GBA ports of Sonic the Hedgehog, Earthworm Jim 1/2, or Comix Zone).

Completely not related to the argument at hand but there was a GBA port of Comix Zone? Well fuck me sideways, I've been enjoying that game a lot on the Sega Genesis Collection.

But yeah, regardless of what it is, it's really quite shit in the end. Getting all uppity over terminology is rather silly when we can all agree on one thing about the end product. Remake or port, it's definitely not the MGS3 everyone wanted or was thinking of when they saw that demo at E3.

 

[Rydian]

So... You're basically saying they could've made bad mock ups of the game to show off to magazines?

I was referencing DNF having done that to note that what's given to magazines and such is most often not the final. The link I gave to some info about one of the Sonic 2 prototypes has the same sort of info, some things showing up in prerelease content that doesn't accurately reflect the final.

Such as this shot of Twilight Princess... a game that was released with no magic meter. That shot was taken during the game's development, before the magic meter was removed (though they also forgot to remove the magic potion).

Like there's them being stupid and making a bad port, remake, whatever you want to call it, and then there's them being flat out retarded and making bad demos of a game for what reason? Hype mongering?

Game companies love hype! In fact big-name companies are known to announce that they won't make or localize games in/for a certain area if there's not enough hype for it (since that more or less translates to customer base).

I wasn't even saying if it was a port or a remake, I was just acknowledging that the game looks really shitty.

My bad. But yeah, games in progress tend to look worse than finalized games (touching up a screenshot for a magazine can help in many cases, but not if you have a low-poly model or something).

 

[Rydian]

I've given my argument on the matter and presented my logic, which i believe is completely fair as well as devoid of any bias.

And for my side, I have linked to actual development information on multiple games and projects which fully supports my theory. Information which you continue to outright ignore.

Your entire argument (when i disregard the insults) on this being a remake is dangling on it being downgraded and that Kojima said so.

The majority of my posts have talked about the development process of games and how what we've seen parallels it. I've taken the fact that Kojima says it's a remake as additional evidence.

The footage i posted was made shortly after E3, taking the 3DS version's trailer shown at the event and syncing it up with the PS2 version side by side.

Okay, that explains a lot... the fact that the left side is from the same thing shown at E3...

The thing shown at E3... You know, THE PORT? So OF COURSE a port of something is going to match up with the original, because it's the same damn code, just ported to run on a different platform...

But the problem is your argument about downgrades indicating a remake, when that's just not true at all.

fhsdjkg
bfsdjlbhfksj




I give up.

 

[granville]

I ignored none of your posts or arguments and read everything you posted (including the links, almost all of which i knew already anyways thanks). I simple find it irrelevant to this remake vs port discussion as they don't pertain to the development process of THIS game (which is what this topic is all about, not the development of OTHER games). I'm going to give you enough credit to assume you realize that MGS, Sonic 2, Mario 64, and DSx86 aren't the same thing? They didn't go through the same exact development process as one another. And none of the three links you posted talk about the development process that goes on when taking a game from one system and getting it to work natively on another (as for DSx86, emulation is another thing entirely from porting or remaking). So all we can really do is use our eyes and brains in this instance.

Your posts do not at all cover anything about how a porting process works. The links you posted are about developing original games, and how the code of them changes over time. It does not hold relevance to taking one game and reworking it to run on another system. And as said, Kojima's comments sound like a sales pitch, not an actual development diary. His comments are at odds with the visual evidence seen.

The version shown at E3 wasn't changed much for TGS, if at all. A trailer and demo was shown there as well and showed little to no change whatsoever. Still has the same downgraded textures and models, still exhibits the same lag, etc. Whether the lighting has improved any is up for debate (i'm still not sure either way). I'm well aware of what a work in progress is and how development changes over time. But this game has shown little change from when it was formally unveiled as an actual game and not just a fancy tech demo. And certain core aspects just aren't likely to be changed at all.

The best i can see happening in the remaining time it's being developed is fixing the framerate. I'm doubtful it'll be completely fixed though if at all. Wishful thinking would be the addition of some shader effects like normal mapping, HDR, self shadowing, or soft shadows. Insanely doubtful though considering the game is having serious trouble running even in its present form. I'm really not expecting it to improve at all. We'll be lucky if the framerate is fixed up any. Anything else would shock me (but also please me and make me glad i was wrong).

 

[Rydian]

Graaaaanvilllllle, christ.

The point of this topic is that the game may be a remake, as stated by Kojima. I agree with this statement. I am saying that the game is not a port... thus it does not follow the porting process.

I am saying that the game is a remake, thus is follows standard game development processes (outside of design and arching story, which are of course copied). I am stating that this game DOES follow the standard game development (on a technical level) because it is not a port.

ONCE AGAIN, there are TWO SEPARATE PRODUCTS. ONE is a port. The OTHER is a remake.

The demo that was shown at E3 was a port. That is product number 1, it's the first on the 3DS. The port. That is the one that did not follow the standard game development process, because it was a port.

After all the hype the E3 demo caused, it was decided to make an actual game. This is product number 2. This is NOT what was shown at E3. This is remake, thus it DOES follow standard game development procedures (on a technical level).

 

[Vinnymac]

Kojima: It is a remake.
Rydian: It is most likely a remake.
This thread: Duh, its clearly a port.

This argument needs to stop, people are gonna believe whatever they believe. If we wait and see maybe we can figure out then. But Kojima makes pretty damn good games, can't we just trust em for a bit and see what happens?

Question: Was MGS HD for Xbox 360 a port or a remake?

I really hope this will be a remake, I would hate to see it ported to a 3DS. And like Rydian said, E3 was not a finished product. It was a display piece, a fake, a preview. Whatever comes next will determine what Kojima has in store.

 

[Foxi4]

So I stumbled upon this today...

[yt]iAXmRmct7dw[/yt]

Best watched on 1080p of course. Opinions? I mean, all I really noticed were improved cloth physics in the 3DS port and slightly better textures, the rest seemed... inferior. All due respect, the blur was "supposed" to be there, reflections are a "nice touch" and the maps seem to be more detailed on the PS2 version. I do have to say though, I like Snake's model on the 3DS better.

All in all though... doesn't look all that different.

 

[Rydian]

As already stated, what was shown during E3 was a tech demo, it was NOT the same project as this upcoming game, and it wasn't even planned to be a 3DS game at that point, it was only a tech demo.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mgs-3ds-just-testing-the-grounds

So everybody complained and wanted a game. So AFTER that, they decided to make a game (which is the SECOND project) since they saw it would sell. This SECOND PROJECT (which, as I have stated 10 fucking billion times is not the same as the first) was not announced until the tokyo games expo, which took place months later (E3 was in June, TGS was in September).
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/09/16/metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater-slithers-onto-3ds-in-2011/
(Note what while that page uses the word "port", it says "seems to be", as they had a lack of info at that time.)

 

[Valwin]

a port is taking everything from game in one platform and moving it to another without really been design for it in the first place for it just like BF3 is a port of the console version on the PC


a remake is remaking a game from scratch to work on specific console also adding new features ect

 

[Foxi4]

Fair play, but tech demos of games are tech demos because they demonstrate technology that will be used in the final product, just in a more refined form.

It's still worth to compare certain segments simply because I find it hard to believe a serious game developer would dedicate precious money and manpower on building a tech demo that will be entirely scrapped. Either some code or some resources will remain.

 

[Rydian]

It was made for a few reasons.

1 - To show what the 3DS's hardware could do.
2 - To give the MGS franchise a more publicity.
3 - So Konami could experiment with the hardware more, and see if it was something they wanted to make games on.

So it was a win-win for the two companies to team up like that.


As for whether it's feasible or a good idea or not to remake the game, I don't know, but all the info about the actual game (the SECOND project) points to IT (not the first) being a remake.