MGSV: Ground Zeroes to Run at 1080p on PS4, Only 720p on Xbox One

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

MGSV: Ground Zeroes to Run at 1080p on PS4, Only 720p on Xbox One

MGSV Ground Zeroes 1

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes' resolution will only be 720p for the Xbox One, which is the same as current-gen, while the PS4 version will run at 1080p.

Konami has officially confirmed that the PS4 version of Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes will run at native 1080p, while the Xbox One version will only output at 720p, which is the same as the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. However, both the PS4 and Xbox One versions will be at 60 frames-per-second (fps), with current-gen versions only managing 30fps. You can check out the comparison table below, as well as side-by-side screenshots of MGSV: Ground Zeroes' on current and next-gen.

image

This isn't the first time a multi-platform game has been technically inferior on the Xbox One, with the most recent example being Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on the PS4 running at twice the frame rate of its Xbox One counterpart. Just yesterday, we posted that the PS4 managed to outsell the Xbox One almost two-to-one in the US last month. Could this technical gap be one of the major reasons people are buying more PS4s?

In other MGSV: Ground Zeroes news, it's been mentioned that the game will only take two hours for players to complete its main mission.

Will Ground Zeroes' follow up, The Phantom Pain, be at the same resolution and frame rate? We won't know for sure until Konami or series creator Hideo Kojima gives us a confirmation. But for those thinking of picking up MGSV: Ground Zeroes, is this disparity enough for people to choose the PS4 version over the Xbox One?

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes will be out in March 18 for the PS3, Xbox 360, PS4 and Xbox One.

Source: Konami

Permalink

It just keeps piling up and up doesn't it?

Though tbh I'm not surprised to hear a Metal Gear Solid game is better on a Playstation.

At lest it's at 60 instead of 30 but still, it's another blow for the Xbone.

If it was actually cheaper then the PS4 it wouldn't be so bad but the Kinect hangs around its neck like an albatross.

Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

St. Aidan:
Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

I don't really care either. I don't think i can tell which ps3/360 games are 60fps and which are 30, or the difference between 720 or 1080, just doesn't matter to me.

The game companies are probably going to tell us that 60 fps means a double dosis of immersion or whatever... :p

One of the dumbest things to come out of the last console generation is the notion that resolution actually matters. So long as the game is aesthetically pleasing, the amount of jaggies or the number of frames per second is, in my mind, absolutely pointless.

scotth266:

One of the dumbest things to come out of the last console generation is the notion that resolution actually matters. So long as the game is aesthetically pleasing, the amount of jaggies or the number of frames per second is, in my mind, absolutely pointless.

Except for the fact that any aesthetically pleasing game will look better at a higher resolution. Hell even Sprites work this way, higher resolution, the more pixel count in sprites. Resolution does matter.

Ya... getting tired of these kinds of "news" articles, we get it ps4 has higher rez then xbone, are we going to talk about how the pc version of a game runs at 6,400 x 4,000 with 100 frames a second.

Oh look xbox one only has jaggies and a vaseline smeared graphical capability.

Confirmed for the 100th time.

And people don't care because we spent the last 7 years with crappy and outdated resolution games being the norm.

Still, its better than the people who claim the next gen can handle 4K or even 2K (1440) gaming. Or that "cinematic" 800p beats 1440.

... or the people that think games should be more like movies by adding copious blur and low FPS cutscenes. Defeating the entire purpose of a video game.

St. Aidan:
Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

You're never the only one on the internet.

But don't think that this is a small issue. With the Xbone you pay more and you get less. And it's only the beginning. One must ask oneself just how much will the Xbone's inadequacies affect multiplatform titles in the future. How much better would multiplatform titles be if the Xbone wasn't such a piece of shit.

St. Aidan:
Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

Well I like hearing about a game having a higher FPS because it can affect the actual gameplay (although I can't say I get too worked up over it), I'm with you in not giving a shit about the resolution. Actually, that's not true. I do enjoy looking at NeoGAF whenever a resolution is announced and seeing the hilarious responses that come in.

Korten12:
Snip

No, it really doesn't. Regardless of the platform, if the game's aesthetics are good, it'll look good. One version of Metal Gear is not going to be the "definitive" version because someone with a magnifying glass thinks that it happens to be crisper. Comparison videos and screenshots have only cemented my attitude, because I can barely detect any difference.

Ultimately, if you're going to get a game, you're going to get it regardless of what platform it's on. If you happen to be blessed enough to own both consoles and have a stiffy for framerates I suppose this sort of stuff matters to you, but then I will consider you to have a completely alien mindset.

On a side note, I think it's funny as hell that we've gotten multiplatform to the point where people care about this stuff. I don't remember people caring about resolution in the Xbox/Gamecube/PS2 days - people back then only cared about the gameplay, whether shit looked okay, and what exclusives were where. Now every generation is like some sort of technological dick-waving competition.

scotth266:
Comparison videos and screenshots have only cemented my attitude, because I can barely detect any difference.

Just thought I'd make a sidenote that most comparison videos are pretty much moot since Youtube's compression is pretty damn horrible.

Graphics do matter. Higher res and framerate will be more "aesthetically pleasing".

Hi res means less noticeable jaggies and "slimmering" - AA can only do so much.

Hi framerate means better perception of motion.

When you buy a game why would you not want to buy the most "aesthetically pleasing" one?

deadish:
Graphics do matter. Higher res and framerate will be more "aesthetically pleasing".

Hi res means less noticeable jaggies and "slimmering" - AA can only do so much.

Hi framerate means better perception of motion.

When you buy a game why would you not want to buy the most "aesthetically pleasing" one?

I prefer the most functional game over the most aesthetically pleasing. But since I'm a pc gamer, I can tweak to my heart's content, and I rarely give a damn about screen resolutions.

scotth266:

One of the dumbest things to come out of the last console generation is the notion that resolution actually matters. So long as the game is aesthetically pleasing, the amount of jaggies or the number of frames per second is, in my mind, absolutely pointless.

Except that you're paying a hundred bucks more for a console that can't produce the same quality. If they were the same price, sure. If they ran at the same resolution and FPS, the price would still be weird, but sure. But the combination of 'pay more, get less' is baffling.

St. Aidan:
Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

I don't particularly care either, but given that this is supposed to be 'THE NEXT GENERATION-TION-tion-tion' I would expect the consoles to perform much better than their predecessors in every way. Plus as others have said, you are paying $100 more for something that performs less well than the competition. Of course after people have been making fun of them for underperforming, MS have said that resolution doesn't matter.

Soviet Heavy:

deadish:
Graphics do matter. Higher res and framerate will be more "aesthetically pleasing".

Hi res means less noticeable jaggies and "slimmering" - AA can only do so much.

Hi framerate means better perception of motion.

When you buy a game why would you not want to buy the most "aesthetically pleasing" one?

I prefer the most functional game over the most aesthetically pleasing. But since I'm a pc gamer, I can tweak to my heart's content, and I rarely give a damn about screen resolutions.

...

You tweak ... but don't care about screen resolution ... OK ...

Given the choice between 2 equally "functional" versions of a game ... Why would anyone not choose the better looking one?

St. Aidan:
Am I the only person who's not concerned about frame rate & resolution???

You are not the only one. You are in small minority however as others want to play games better.

MrBaskerville:

I don't really care either. I don't think i can tell which ps3/360 games are 60fps and which are 30, or the difference between 720 or 1080, just doesn't matter to me.

The game companies are probably going to tell us that 60 fps means a double dosis of immersion or whatever... :p

a sign of a bad TV that you use to play it on.

And game companies been telling us that 30 FPS is more cinematic because laggy is good of course. only those companies that can make thier games run on 60 fps mind you.

scotth266:
One of the dumbest things to come out of the last console generation is the notion that resolution actually matters. So long as the game is aesthetically pleasing, the amount of jaggies or the number of frames per second is, in my mind, absolutely pointless.

It is as dumb as people claiming that one of the dumbest things to come out out of science is knowledge that earth is not flat.
You may not think it matters, but you would simply be wrong.

scotth266:

No, it really doesn't. Regardless of the platform, if the game's aesthetics are good, it'll look good. One version of Metal Gear is not going to be the "definitive" version because someone with a magnifying glass thinks that it happens to be crisper. Comparison videos and screenshots have only cemented my attitude, because I can barely detect any difference.

Ultimately, if you're going to get a game, you're going to get it regardless of what platform it's on. If you happen to be blessed enough to own both consoles and have a stiffy for framerates I suppose this sort of stuff matters to you, but then I will consider you to have a completely alien mindset.

On a side note, I think it's funny as hell that we've gotten multiplatform to the point where people care about this stuff. I don't remember people caring about resolution in the Xbox/Gamecube/PS2 days - people back then only cared about the gameplay, whether shit looked okay, and what exclusives were where. Now every generation is like some sort of technological dick-waving competition.

where did you compare the video? do you have set ups that run both 720p and 1080p? because youtube is not good enough. youtube compresses video and you wont see a difference because youtube wants to save storage space so it ruins the video.
And resolution DOES matter to asthetics. it simply is a fact. on low resolution you are unable to make games look as good as you want to.
And no, your not going to get a game regardless of the platform its in. If a game is bad on that platform you dont buy it. And what do you mean "Gotten". this has been around since the original NES. People ALWAYS CARED.

Honestly I just don't give a shit about stuff like this anymore, for those that do really need to get their priorities in order if graphics really matter more than gameplay.

Jesus I remember like it was yesterday when we had our PS1's and 2's and back then not one fuck was given about graphics and res, now it's totally different and completely annoying and stale to see and hear the same trough over and over as if it suddenly matters for every single person liking or not on this planet.

scotth266:

One of the dumbest things to come out of the last console generation is the notion that resolution actually matters. So long as the game is aesthetically pleasing, the amount of jaggies or the number of frames per second is, in my mind, absolutely pointless.

It's a very short-sighted point of view to have.

In your personal circumstances it may not mean anything, but to people in different scenarios it may mean a lot.

From my perspective, I have a Samsung 55F8000 T.V (55" 1080p LED) and my current living circumstances means that I have to sit VERY close to it and the difference between 720p and 1080p could not be any more noticable.

720p at my viewing distance looks like something they would have watched in the 30's or 40's, the "jaggies" strain my eyes because I'm constantly looking at a fuzzy mess and trying to focus it.

4k vs. 1080p is currently going through a similar for and against scenario at the moment, mainly because the average and/or recommended viewing distance for your T.V makes it seem like there is almost no difference, you cannot truly appreciate the resolution changes until you get up close and personal.

The best tech demo I have been a part of for 4k is having a picture of the same actual size newspaper side by side on a 4k TV and a 1080p TV of the same size... You cannot read a single word on the 1080p TV, you can, however, read everything on the 4k TV clear as day.

tl;dr Resolution differences can appear like nothing or absolutely everything depending on the size of your T.V and your viewing distance from said T.V.

Normally i wouldn't care about any of this crap.

But it is hilarious that people are paying more for less with the xbone.

Why are there always people with either 10 year old equipment or severe eyesight problems who claim they can't see the difference and thus don't care?
If you're for whatever reason fine with shelling out 500 bucks for equipment that gets beaten by even a mid-range laptop, that's fine, but don't pretend it's in any way normal. The difference is notable to absolutely everyone who isn't lying, and for a "next-gen" console to run at 720p is nothing short of ridiculous.

I primarily play 10+ year old games and don't even own a last gen console, but I'd never claim that these graphics were all I ever needed and that I'd still accept them from a modern title at full price. I honestly don't get you people.

As a competitive gamer in my youth (Counterstrike, QuakeWorld), I can tell you for sure that there is a noticeable difference between 30fps and 60. I remember swapping video cards back in the day and going from ~28 fps to right at 60, my K:D dramatically improved. Resolution is more than aesthetics, it impacts your ability to pick out details and differentiate between someone you want to shoot and a tree. Sure, on a 32" TV (as opposed to a computer monitor), the difference may not be profound, but on my 65", it's pretty obvious.

What I find more interesting than the people who say they don't care is that the horsepower differences in the two consoles keep stacking up. Battlefield runs at a higher res on the PS4 and supports more players? Tombraider runs at a higher res? Titanfall only supporting 6v6 (yes, I hear Respawn claiming that it was a game balance decision, I just don't believe it). Now this?

Hopefully for M$, the delta in performance is more about developers needing to become attuned to the new platform and the PS4 is easier to develop on. Unfortunately, I think we are seeing a clear difference in the raw capabilities of the two platforms, which will only widen over time. That doesn't bode well for Microsoft and their more expensive console.

EDIT - My point about 32" vs 65" was not a dig at anyone. It was only pointing out that the larger the TV, the more noticeable that resolution differences are.

Staskala:
Why are there always people with either 10 year old equipment or severe eyesight problems who claim they can't see the difference and thus don't care?
If you're for whatever reason fine with shilling out 500 bucks for equipment that gets beaten by even a mid-range laptop, that's fine, but don't pretend it's in any way normal. The difference is notable to absolutely everyone who isn't lying, and for a "next-gen" console to run at 720p is nothing short of ridiculous.

I primarily play 10+ year old games and don't even own a last gen console, but I'd never claim that these graphics were all I ever needed and that I'd still accept them from a modern title at full price. I honestly don't get you people.

I got a 32' Samsung tv and i couldn't tell you which games in my collection are 60 fps and which are 30. Only thing i notice is that most non japanese ps3 games run like crap, not because they are 30 fps, but because the framerate is unstable. I don't have any resolution problems, and considering that i rarely play big expensive state of the art games, i can't see why i should care. Must ps2 games are 30 fps (I assume) and they seem to run smoothly, so yeah can't see hy i should care. I'm more concerned with visual style and gameplay.

Shadow-Phoenix:
Jesus I remember like it was yesterday when we had our PS1's and 2's and back then not one fuck was given about graphics and res, now it's totally different and completely annoying and stale to see and hear the same trough over and over as if it suddenly matters for every single person liking or not on this planet.

Yeah right, back then nobody gave a shit about graphics. That's why every new generation back then didn't get a huge graphical upgrade. And why many 2D platformers didn't get ruined by going 3D, because that was the new hotness.

It also why we explicitly didn't get that Metal Gear Solid 2 reveal trailer screaming at us 'Look how fucking sick this looks with the new PS2 graphics!!!'

Yeah, none of that shit happened.

Whatislove:
Snip

Strazdas:
Snip

Casual Shinji:
Snip

image

It's like clockwork. See, this is why the PS2 generation will always be the best for me: back then we didn't have this shit. Some consoles were better tech-wise than others, but nobody cared - all they cared about was the number of good games available for the box, and while the ugly head of graphics whoring was starting to show up, stuff like the Gamecube could be appreciated for what it had.

Now if you have the gall to suggest that graphics aren't everything, people jump your shit. Truly, a step forward.

Genocidicles:
Normally i wouldn't care about any of this crap.

But it is hilarious that people are paying more for less with the xbone.

100$ for a console that can do more than just play games.

MrBaskerville:
I got a 32' Samsung tv and i couldn't tell you which games in my collection are 60 fps and which are 30. Only thing i notice is that most non japanese ps3 games run like crap, not because they are 30 fps, but because the framerate is unstable. I don't have any resolution problems, and considering that i rarely play big expensive state of the art games, i can't see why i should care. Must ps2 games are 30 fps (I assume) and they seem to run smoothly, so yeah can't see hy i should care. I'm more concerned with visual style and gameplay.

I was mostly talking about resolution, FPS really depends on the type of game you're playing. Since most modern games are much slower paced compared to Quake or UT or whatever, I can see why it doesn't matter to some people. With action games and FPS it's really noticeable, not so much for platformers, RPGs etc.
By the way, that's an interesting sidenote to the people claiming that back in the day no one cared about this shit, during the height of competitive PC FPS gaming things were all about the FPS. 60 FPS CRT? Get the fuck outta here, scrub.

I'm gonna jump on the "I don't care" bandwagon, but I do find it funny how people seem to react surprised that an MGS game runs smoother on a PlayStation console.

scotth266:
It's like clockwork. See, this is why the PS2 generation will always be the best for me: back then we didn't have this shit. Some consoles were better tech-wise than others, but nobody cared - all they cared about was the number of good games available for the box, and while the ugly head of graphics whoring was starting to show up, stuff like the Gamecube could be appreciated for what it had.

Now if you have the gall to suggest that graphics aren't everything, people jump your shit. Truly, a step forward.

Nobody's suggesting graphics are everything. But when you're paying a hundred bucks more for less, that's something. Enough to bitch about, I would think.

And speaking of the Gamecube, wasn't it Wind Waker that made everyone go fucking apeshit over it not sporting the latest realistic graphics? And REmake getting super hyped because the prerendered backgrounds with new tech looked amazing? Or Metal Gear Solid getting remade so it also could have shiny new graphics?

Please don't pretend like "graphics whoring" wasn't just as present back then, because it was. Bitching about it online simply wasn't.

The reason a lot of focus is placed on fps and resolution now is because that's the only area that still has a lot more room to increase in quality. Since graphics have more or less reached the ceiling.

Even though i prefer a great game at low res than a piece of crap at 1080 - there is still no excuse why a modern console cant play at that res as standard. But, i dont understand why the XB1 is 720, the 360 was 1080. Also why is it only the PS4 1080 for this game? Why not the PS3 version? Now i find it hard to believe the XB1 isnt capable of 1080 so is it a case of they made it to complicated to do it?

Or could it be we will get a MGS5 - Definitive Edition released on the XB1 near christmas? ;-)

Two apples, both the same price.

One is a nice, shiny red apple.

The other isn't quite as shiny, and is a little wrinkly.

Pretty obvious choice, no?

Also the table you eat the nice one on costs a hundred bucks less to sit at.

And just to take this (kind of shitty) metaphor to it's logical conclusion, there's also an amazing super fruit you can buy that costs less and tastes better, but you gotta do some legwork first.

Casual Shinji:
Nobody's suggesting graphics are everything. But when you're paying a hundred bucks more for less, that's something. Enough to bitch about, I would think.

People sure act like graphics are everything - you can see it in this thread. Even your own point here implies that the graphics hardware is literally all there is to the two consoles. We know that isn't true - after all, the Xbox One comes with a Kinect, which last I checked accounts for the 100 dollars difference between the consoles.

And speaking of the Gamecube, wasn't it Wind Waker that made everyone go fucking apeshit over it not sporting the latest realistic graphics?

Now you show that you don't even know what aesthetics are, because that was the entire reason people were pissed about Wind Waker. The issue wasn't "NOT ENOUGH GRAPHICS," it was "I DON'T LIKE THE ART STYLE," which is an entirely different argument.

And REmake getting super hyped because the prerendered backgrounds with new tech looked amazing?

Or Metal Gear Solid getting remade so it also could have shiny new graphics?

Both of these are referencing remakes, where the whole point is to take a classic and make it shinier. Of course people talked about how shiny they were. That doesn't mean that they were graphics whoring - it's an entirely different world from how people flip their shit today over resolution differences.

Resolution matters BUT and it is a big BUT both the PS4 and Xbox One are CONSOLES. Meaning both probably are hooked up on TELEVISIONS. This is important.

Unlike a pc where you got a screen right before your face. Or a gaming laptop with again a screen within 3 feet. A Television tends to be FURTHER away.

Many people have to small a television for the room/situation. I am not joking when buying my new television I had to dig out the calculations to make sure that I would get 1080p right to where I would be sitting. And I am happy I did, sure the television is slightly bigger then first planned but if I play blu-rays on it, or 1080p games, I actually can SEE the 1080p from it.

Many people though have a to small television and only can effectively see aruond 720p or worse. In the old television situation the seating was more in the 480p area. http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship
There :) Trust me if you ever complained about 720p being more then enough actually sit on the right distance from your television for viewing. And you'll actually notice the 1080p upgrade.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here