Some rather interesting interviews have been emerging from Xbox boss Phil Spencer as of late. Along with encouraging Sony to partake in cross-platform play with Minecraft and criticizing third party deals for exclusive content, Spencer talked to Metro UK about the merits of 60 FPS for games.

The basic impetus was on emphasizing 60 FPS for Xbox One X games because it affects gameplay and how the difference between 1080p and 4K resolutions aren’t noticeable by most. When told that people notice the frame rate going below “what it needs to be” and how something is wrong, Spencer said that, “Some people do. Some people just want to have fun playing Lego Batman.”

He later followed up by saying, “This console [Xbox One X ] will make it more possible for developers to drive the resolution and frame rate consistency than any other console on the market.”

When it was stated that having 60 FPS mandated as a standard would be great, Spencer said, “I will tell you, as someone that’s run a platform now for a while, mandating gameplay decisions is a bad place for a platform holder to go in.

“Developers are completely incentivised to give you the best experience they can. We can both agree on that. So if they think it’s 60fps and that’s gonna help them, in terms of selling more copies of the game, they’re gonna be all in. Not everybody understands what 60fps vs. 30fps means. They’re not all as technical as you are.”

What are your thoughts on all of this? Let us know in the comments whether you’d prefer 4K resolution on Xbox One X games or more of a focus on 60 FPS at 1080p.

Gearbox Software is still chugging away on Battleborn, it’s upcoming first person shooter/MOBA hybrid, but it seems to be making good progress. The co-op campaign looks like a rollicking good time based on the latest footage shown at E3 2015. The obvious question, though, is how the Xbox One and PS4 will handle the shooter.

GamingBolt had a chance to speak to 2K Games’ Chris Thomas who is publishing producer on Battleborn about the resolution for the game. While many expect it to hit 1080p resolution on the PS4, can the same be said about the Xbox One?

“Yes, absolutely [it will run at 1080p on PS4 and Xbox One]. That is always the plan. The game is still in development so you never know. But 1080p is the goal and that is what we are trying to achieve.”

Keep in mind that this is currently the goal for Battleborn and plans can change down the line. Regardless, Gearbox’s periodic updates and gameplay footage lead us to think it will be possible.

Battleborn will be out on PS4, PC and Xbox One in Q4 2015 or Q1 2016.

Had enough about DirectX 12 yet? Some developers are interested in the possibilities while others aren’t sure it’ll make a difference (and then there are the studios which believe the benefits will only become apparent after some time). However, there’s no denying that’s easily going to be one of the more exciting new features when it launches alongside Windows 10 and eventually arrives on Xbox One.

One such studio which is excited about DX12 is Turn 10 Studios, developer of the upcoming Forza Motorsport 6. We had a chance to talk to the game’s executive producer Ryan Cooper and while the graphics API won’t be utilized in Forza Motorsport 6, the studio is excited at the potential it presents.

“Yes, we’re really excited about DX12 and I think there is going to be a ton of potential with that. However we’re not utilizing Dx12 in Forza Motorsport 6 on Xbox One.

“We’re always looking to push the boundaries. Take our Forza Tech engine for example; that’s an engine that has been in development for over 10 years and with every version of the game we’re always trying to push the technology boundaries of what that engine can do. With the addition of night racing and racing in the rain and the ability to present that to players at 1080p/60 fps is really a technical achievement we’re proud of.”

Forza Motorsport 6 releases on September 15th in North America and September 18th in Europe for Xbox One. What are your thoughts on its resolution and frame rate, along with the future of DirectX 12? Let us know in the comments.

For all the criticism that’s been lobbed at the Xbox One and its potential power, recent SDK updates helped unlock a seventh CPU core, allowing for developers to do more with the hardware. How does this effect future games like Spiders’ The Technomancer though?

GamingBolt spoke to Spiders CEO Jehanne Rousseau about the resolution and frame rate for the future action RPG and on asking whether it would run on 1080p resolution and 60 FPS (or settling for 30 FPS), Rousseau said, “For a RPG like The Technomancer we preferred to achieve the best graphic quality, so we decided to stick to 1080p and 30 fps on PS4 and Xbox One.

“The 60 fps is a very interesting technical challenge, but concentrate our efforts on it would not be reasonable for us, and there would have been too many sacrifices to do on the game.”

It’s not necessarily the strangest situation though recent games like The Witcher 3 and Batman: Arkham Knight still run at 900p resolution on the console. What are your thoughts on future releases hitting 1080p on Xbox One though? Let us know in the comments.

However, it’s interesting to note that the HD Remaster for both titles was done on the PlayStation 3 first. Considering the sizable leap in performance between both platforms, what kind of visual differences could one look forward to? For that matter, how did the HD Remaster compare to the PS2 versions of yore? Let’s find out.

First the good news: The PlayStation 4 indeed offers a significant bump in performance to Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster with the frame rate staying stable at 30 FPS. This is compared to the PS3 version which saw a fair number of drops. It’s especially impressive when you consider that the PS3 version offered two rendering options – 720p with anti-aliasing and 1080p with no anti-aliasing. Meanwhile, the PS4 version is capable of a 1080p resolution with multi-sample anti-aliasing and still maintains a solid frame rate.

Final Fantasy X-2 PS4 Versus PS3 (720p with AA) Head to Head Comparison . Please click 1080p for the best possible video quality.

MSAA itself a solid addition to both games as it provides a higher level of image quality and sharper edges overall. Object geometry and the overall sharpness of structures is a significant step above the PS3 version. This also helps with the geometry of playable characters which we’ll get to in a bit.

Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster also serves to improve the texture map resolution in several places with the anisotropic filtering on PS4 resulting in less compression artifacting and crisper textures overall. Ambient occlusion has also been applied on PS4, lending a more refined dimension of shading and rendering to the games’ characters. It certainly helps present a more realistic rendition of Spira and its inhabitants, which is all the more important given the fantastical events occurring.

It’s not all hunky dory though and the texture map resolution improvements serve to highlight the fact that the PS4 version’s textures aren’t all that different from the PS3 version. In fact, there are several places which seem to have been giving a facelift while other remain noticeably lower grade and PS3-esque. This isn’t even a clear pattern throughout the game – it’s as inconsistent as the PS3 version’s frame rate drops.

In terms of little touches, the PS4 version sees better alpha effects. Smoke and fire effects are improved and even the fur detailing looks pretty good. Water and lighting effects are better than ever and the PS4 version properly shows off the use of bloom and dynamic shadows with relation to the improved surroundings. And while most NPCs and other characters have new textures, the main cast have been rebuilt to a fair degree. The geometric meshes governing their expressions look much more well-rounded and full of detail. While only the main characters have seen such a strong overhaul to their looks, you’ll notice a few NPCs having improved rendering as well.

Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster may sport a native 1080p resolution but sadly, the CG full motion videos have simply been scaled from a 4:3 aspect ratio to 16:9. The result is a loss in detail overall and it required a sizable amount of effort in both art and programming to have it mesh with the gameplay. Sure, it looks clearer than the PlayStation 2 version but there’s no denying that lack of clarity overall.

Sufficient effort was put into remastering the game’s music with roughly 60 tracks remastered and the ability to choose between the original score and the remastered work. Voice audio has also been significantly improved though you’ll still have to put up with Tidus’s horrifyingly cringe-inducing laugh.

A number of graphical errors can also be seen at certain points, mostly related to clipping. Hands will pass through sleeves, hair passes into a character’s back as the head moves around, ribbons don’t fold properly and so on.

Final Fantasy X PS4 Versus PS3 (720p with AA)  Head to Head Comparison . Please click 1080p for the best possible video quality.

When viewing the Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster on the PlayStation 4, it’s easy to compare it to Square Enix’s recent Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. The latter saw a boat-load of improvements in alpha effects, resolution, etc. while the former’s biggest improvements are by of ambient occlusion, a nearly locked 30 FPS frame rate, full HD resolution, MSAA and improved geometry meshes. The aspect ratio of the cut-scenes is a bummer and it is annoying to see glitches from 2001 making an appearance in a 2015 video game, regardless of its status as a remaster.

However, the final result represents an earnest and committed drive by Square Enix to bring its older titles to current gen console users. Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster may not be the best remaster of all time but it stands tall, warts and all, and presents a compelling experience worthy of the tag.

GamingBolt’s Bill Smith performed the technical analysis of this game.

As per the Active Time Report, Final Fantasy 15 director Hajime Tabata and marketing manager Akio Ofuji discussed several key aspects of the upcoming PS4/Xbox One title.

Tabata addressed the camera system first. “We may consider allowing the player to choose from different camera distances.” The camera will be less sluggish this time around as, “We’ll make sure the camera is smoother. Simple as that.”

The issue of frame rate drops is also serious and Square Enix has classified it as a “high priority issue.” The team is also “working towards full HD. But frame rate is more important than resolution.”

What about Cindy, the newest version of the classic Cid character, and concerns of her being erotic? As Tabata says, “She’s actually not meant to be an erotic character. Her character is very energetic and outgoing, a very active character. With those traits paired with her appearance, we feel it wouldn’t be too problematic even if, say, she shows up on screen while your parents are in the living room.”

Ofuji clarified that the amount of skin being showed by her may be a reason for the “erotic” concerns. Tabata responded by saying, “Oh, I see. But she is a very cheerful and active character, I don’t think we want to change the current concept.”

Final Fantasy 15 will see the return of its Episode Duscae demo next month so stay tuned.

(Source)

Ignoring the bugs that emerged at launch (and really, which game these days even gives you the option not to?), we took a closer look at the visuals governing Evolve. As our early analysis stated before, Evolve runs on 1080p resolution for the PS4 and 900p resolution on the Xbox One. Both versions run at 30 frames per second and it’s a shame considering the developer targeted 60 frames per second from the outset.

An 11 minute comparing the PS4, Xbox One and PC versions of Evolve. Please note given the dynamic nature of the maps, its difficult to compare a similar scene but we have tried our best. Please select 1080p and 60fps for best video quality.

It also doesn’t help that both console versions suffer frame rate drops occasionally, with the Xbox One facing said drops more than the PS4. Similar to Techland’s Dying Light, there is no anisotropic filtering on the PS4 version of the game. It’s quite baffling when you consider that the PS4 is more than capable of pulling off the same without any issues. Could Turtle Rock have opted for this in order to ensure the Xbox One’s image quality could still compete with the PS4’s higher resolution? Once again, we can’t say for sure but we’ll be looking at the lack of anisotropic filtering on the PS4 in a future article.

As for the PC version of Evolve, it’s capable of a 1080p resolution but shipped with a 30 FPS frame rate cap. Thankfully, there have been fixes issued for the same along with the ability to enable motion blur but why Turtle Rock didn’t just place these options in the game itself has us flummoxed. At the very least the frame rate is more stable on PC then on consoles, with more scalability across varying GPUs, but we’ll get to that in a bit.

A selection of screenshots from the PC (left), Xbox One (middle) and PS4 (right) versions. Uncompressed screenshots are available on request. Please let us know in the comments below if you need them and we will reply back with the download link. Please note that the total size of the download will be over 400 MB.

The PS4 and Xbox One versions of the game make use sub-morphological anti-aliasing (SMAA) and for there are no issues with regards to jaggies or image crispness. Assets on both consoles from water physics to foliage are pretty much similar though the PS4 does have better image quality overall due its native 1080p resolution.

The Xbox One fires back by having more detailed objects thanks to its use of anisotropic filtering. Shadow quality on the PlayStation 4 is superior, likely due to HBAO-type of ambient occlusion being used as compared to the Xbox One, which seems to have employed an lowered solution resulting in dithered shadows.

You may not notice some of the finer details during the heat of battle but for those who take notice, you’ll find a world with detailed foliage, realistic water and strong atmospheric effects. Even the rough, war-torn skin of the Monster shines on occasion and the various details that emerge upon damaging almost never look the same twice.

Both console versions aren’t without their problems though. Pop-in issues are fairly common on the console versions and it’s a shame considering Evolve’s world isn’t half as large or open as Dying Light’s. Texture streaming issues also pop up every now and then, resulting in some textures loading late for both faces and armour. Turtle Rock should be able to patch the same but how it will go about handling the pop-in problem, which appears to be fairly standard on current gen games thus far, remains to be seen.

It should also be noted that load times after the day one patch are still fairly long on consoles. The PC version is much faster and it also benefits from less texture streaming issues.

 More comparison screenshots from the PC (left), Xbox One (middle) and PS4 (right) versions. 

Evolve on PC is obviously the superior experience since you can enable 1080p/60 FPS. However, it’s not nearly as expansive as we would have hoped. Graphical options than can be modified include Texture Detail, Shader Detail, Model Detail, Shadow Quality, Particle Quality, V-sync but the Tessellation option from the beta is gone. I understand that this could have been a performance issue but a simple toggle with on/off would have worked but simply removing it is a questionable.

Anti-aliasing solutions include SMAA 1x, SMAA 1Tx (default), and FXAA. That’s right – there’s no option for MSAA or other higher grades of anti-aliasing.

PC Graphics Settings and OptionsEVOLVE Xbox One.

Gameplay footage from the PC version with everything maxed out. Please select 1080p and 60fps for best video quality.

Turtle Rock did focus on optimizing the PC version as best as it could. We tested Evolve on an Intel Core i7-5960X with 16 GB of RAM. It relied more heavily on the GPU then CPU though so we tested it on a variety of different cards including the Radeon R0 290 4 GB (average 69 FPS), GeForce GTX 780 3 GB (81 FPS), GeForce GTX 680 2 GB (55 FPS), Radeon HD 7870 2 GB (44 FPS) and Radeon HD 7850 (40 FPS). These numbers are with all the graphical options set to max and though we noticed the odd stutter in performance, it was fairly rare though.

SLI and Crossfire are not supported yet but the developers plan to fix this in the future.

Verdict:

We were initially wowed by Evolve when the first screenshots of the game emerged. One would think that gameplay footage would have dulled our spirits but Evolve managed to stay impressive throughout its lengthy marketing campaign. The final game doesn’t quite impress as much as we expected it to but there’s still a lot to like.

In many ways, it’s hard to reconcile with the fact that Evolve is only 30 frames per second on the Xbox One and PS4. When you bring a fast paced shooter out, Titanfall being the best example, it’s always best to go for 60 frames per second for the best possible movement and response. Evolve doesn’t help its case by having frame rate drops every now and then, especially on the Xbox One version.

Nonetheless, PC users will still have a great experience with the game, netting the best visual flourishes overall (some tinkering will be required for that 60 FPS frame rate though). The PS4 version, even with the lack of anisotropic filtering, stands above the Xbox One version thanks to better shadows, a higher resolution and superior ambient occlusion.

As of now, Evolve feels like Turtle Rock Studios learning the ropes of newer architectures and multiple high-end platforms. Some benefit of the doubt is a given but Evolve can still be improved on several more visual levels.

GamingBolt’s Bill Smith also contributed to this article.

With all the optimization that was done, it was eventually decided that 30 FPS provided the best frame rate all around and thankfully, the trade-offs weren’t huge since both the PS4 and Xbox One supported SMAA T2X anti-aliasing as well. There shouldn’t have been any major surprise when we found out that the PS4 and Xbox One versions were at first nearly identical.

Over 14 minutes of gameplay comparison between PS4 and Xbox One versions.

Over 12 minutes of gameplay comparison between PC and PS4 versions.

Over 14 minutes of gameplay comparison between PC and Xbox One versions.

Now that we’ve had significantly more time to analyse both console versions and the PC version, which one stands out as the best-looking version of Dying Light? Does the PC win out with its potential for more powerful hardware utilization? How identical are the PS4 and Xbox One after all? For that matter, what does Techland do to properly simulate the feel of being chased by dozens of zombies across rooftops?

Dying Light on PS4 and Xbox One is interesting right off the bat when you look at its 1080p resolution. PS4 users can take comfort in having the slightly superior version since it uses native 1080p. The Xbox One version runs at a resolution of 1536×1080, so it sticks out every now and then when it comes to image quality.

That being said, the trade-off was made to incorporate anisotropic filtering on the Xbox One to give it that extra bit of detail. Oddly enough, the PS4 version lacks anisotropic filtering. We’re not sure why this was done for only one version but it is intriguing. Perhaps Techland found it easier to run AF on a reduced native 1080p resolution and obtain the same amount of detail as the PS4 version’s native 1080p?

Please note that the images below are compressed. If you want to see uncompressed images, please find them here. Please note that each uncompressed image is around 6MB.

The first image in the row is from the PC version, followed by Xbox One and PS4.

One can only wonder but that doesn’t change the fact the PS4 version is superior in some ways. The SMAA T2X anti-aliasing results in a sharper image on the PS4. Draw distance is also slightly better but it’s one of those things that requires a side-by-side comparison to really notice.

In terms of volumetric effects, the PS4 and Xbox One versions are virtually identical. Aside from the obvious differences in resolution and AF implementation, texture quality on both consoles are similar to those on high settings for the PC version. Volumetric effects such as wind and smoke look the same and Techland incorporated an ample dose of depth of field and motion blur during the high-speed parkour segments. It certainly helps build that sensation of speed, which only accentuates the fact that multiple monsters are attempting to eat you.

What doesn’t help is the inconsistent frame rate on both the Xbox One and PS4. The latter hovers around 30 FPS and sees a few drops at times. For the most part, it’s nothing debilitating but on the PS4, you’ll see frame judders every now and then. This is where the frame rate jumps from 30 FPS to 45 FPS at times. It’s irritating at times and certainly doesn’t help the PS4 version’s movement.

One should also note that both consoles have a fair amount of shadow dithering where the shadow textures come off as grainy.

The first image in the row is from the PC version, followed by Xbox One and PS4.

Oftentimes when building a AAA title for PC, it’s important to emphasize optimization and stability over a full suite of options. This isn’t to say that developers shouldn’t tag on a few bells and whistles but it’s important to get the game running above all.

That being said, we’re baffled that there aren’t any options for anti-aliasing on the PC version of Dying Light. It also utilizes SMAA T2X just like the console versions. We can only speculate as to why Techland didn’t provide other AA solutions and while it doesn’t look horrible, it certainly handicaps the visual fidelity that Dying Light could achieve on PC.

Another annoying aspect of the PC version is how some objects seem to have inferior detailing compared to the console versions. Visual artefacts abound in these instances but are noticeable absent on the Xbox One and PS4.
For comparing the Xbox One and PS4 to the PC version, we decided to test Dying Light on six configurations. An Intel Core i7-5960X clocked at 3 GHz with 16 GB RAM was employed with all settings dialled up and resolution set to 1080p.

The average frames rates across GPUs certainly pointed to Techland’s focus on optimization across a variety of GPUs. The Radeon R9 290 with 4 GB VRAM averaged 69 frames per second; the GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3 GB came close with 67 frames per second while the GeForce GTX 780 3 GB averaged 54 FPS. The GeForce GTX 680 2 GB delivered 46 frames per second, the Radeon HD 7970 an average of 41 frames per second and the Radeon HD 7850 2 GB averaged 34 FPS.

As seen from the results above, the game scales pretty well across a variety of GPUs, delivering a visually strong experience with frame rates above the 30 FPS standard on consoles.

The lack of AA options in the PC version is a bit baffling.

Dying Light utilizes physical based rendering and global illumination for realistic interactions between lights and objects. The dynamic lighting isn’t on the level of, say, Assassin’s Creed: Unity but it’s still incredibly solid overall. Environmental effects like rain look good but they seem like they could be improved. At the very least, the rain causes objects to moisten up and you’ll notice the differences in glossiness and dryness depending on the weather. Dynamic day/night cycles also look good and manage to actually gel with one’s sense of time (which is important given the dangers that the night can bring).

Techland further impressed us with the post-processing applied to the motion blur and wind – sometimes, you’ll see foliage blowing right by as you run. Foliage density is almost the same on PS4 and Xbox One with the PC version being slightly higher. Screen space reflections are strangely not prominent throughout the game – they exist but on a very small scale.

The first image in the row is from the PC version, followed by Xbox One and PS4.

There is also the odd bit of screen tearing at times across all platforms. It’s also rare but hopefully Techland continues to optimize the title to eliminate them completely. Maybe add a shadow to protagonist Kyle Crane in the meantime since we couldn’t find one.

Dying Light is often cited as being the game Dead Island should have been. In terms of optimization and engine use, it does a far better job with Chrome Engine 6 then Dead Island did with Chrome Engine 5. It paints a fairly good picture for the engine’s future on other platforms.

The Xbox One and PS4 versions do have their share of faults with the frame rate drops, reduced resolution with better AF on the former and better image quality but no AF on the latter. The PS4 version is definitely recommend since its native 1080p looks better than the Xbox One but those frame judders can be annoying.

Those with a good PC are thus advised to opt for the PC version if they want that 1080p/60 FPS experience. Chrome Engine 6 may still need some optimizing and Dying Light does have its fair share of issues to be ironed out across all versions but visually, Techland is off to a good start this generation.

GamingBolt’s Bill Smith also contributed to this article.

Not only did Hideo Kojima and his team use the FOX Engine to provide a large open world with dynamic mechanics but they did it in 1080p resolution and 60 frames per second (on the PS4 at least). Some issues abound, as always – the Xbox One version was limited to 720p resolution and there were problems with pop-in – but for the very first Metal Gear Solid game to arrive on the current gen platforms, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes was more than competent.

However, it’s the PC version which has us more interested. Unlike the original Metal Gear Solid PC port, which was essentially Metal Gear Solid Integral, Ground Zeroes has been translated keeping in mind the capabilities of the more powerful platform. How does that affect the overall state of the visuals compared to the PS4 version, which we’ve taken as the best-looking version among consoles? Let’s find out.

Cutscene comparison between the PS4 and PC versions.

Our PC configuration for this comparison included an Intel i7-4930K with an NVidia GTX 690. We used an AMD FX 8350 and a Radeon R9290x as well. The PS4 version stands above the other consoles due to its 1080p resolution but it’s also impressive because it maintains a consistent 60 frames per second. The skylines also looks significantly better over the Xbox One and details like the Bokeh Effects look more distinguished.

It was amazing to note that using the above PC configuration, the game rarely fell below 60 frames per second, even with maximum details enabled at 1080p resolution. But perhaps due to the open world nature of the game, Kojima Productions didn’t go overboard with the PC customization options.

For instance, there’s no option for changing the anti-aliasing. You can’t opt for MSAA here and instead, the PC port of Ground Zeroes uses the PS4 version’s post-processing anti-aliasing with deferred rendering. Since the FOX Engine doesn’t support AA beyond the variable options – thus facilitating the need for a custom solution – it makes sense that the studio wouldn’t want to mess around and use more powerful AA solutions on PC. The focus is on optimizing Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes for PC users, ensuring a great looking game without the pitfalls that come with porting. We suspect the lack of AA options is due to the way the Fox Engine was built. The game is perhaps using only a single type of AA which is hardware based.

That doesn’t mean the PC version doesn’t try to improve upon the console release. The pop-in problems from the console versions are pretty much eliminated on PC, ensuring a more realistic and fluid experience as you race from one point of the map to the next. Also, it’s interesting to note how screen space reflections are far more prominent and plentiful on the PC version.

Ambient Occlusion has also been significantly improved and despite lacking a plentiful suite of extra options, there is support for NVidia SLI which results in strong SLI scaling. The overall texture quality is also better with shadows appearing more crisp and realistic than on the PS4.

Gameplay comparison between PC and PS4 versions.

Oddly enough, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes on the PC does miss out on what would be a few obvious additions. Tessellation is missing, resulting in some light sources not even casting shadows, and AMD users won’t have anything snazzy like TressFX for more realistic hair (which looks like the console versions). A field of view (FOV) slider is also missing, which is sure to earn the ire of some folk.

In many other areas, the PC version is pretty much similar to the PS4 version. Bokeh Effects have been added over along with atmospheric simulation and alpha effects from the PS4 version. The foliage looks great but there’s no vast improvement in detail or texture quality. You will notice slight improvements when viewing both versions side by side but that’s just about it.

The detail on character models is pretty much unchanged but again, it’s worth noting that that there was nothing wrong with them to begin with. Weather effects, including rain, are as beautiful as ever as evidenced by the stark infiltration performed at night when it’s pouring down heavily.

Kojima Productions may not have blown the roof off with options but it worked on something far more important – ensuring Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes could run on a wide variety of GPUs and CPUs while still maintaining a steady frame rate at the standard 1080p resolution. Wherever it could improve things, it did so without significantly overhauling anything or supporting some of the more premium solutions like HBAO+ or MSAA.

A selection of screenshots for the PC (top) and PC (below) versions of the game.

Conclusion

Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes stands as a testament to how PC ports should be done, especially in this age of botched multi-platform titles. It’s still amazing how a developer like Ubisoft could stumble so much when trying to properly optimize their experiences for PC – that too from the beginning rather than after the release of, say, Assassin’s Creed: Unity or Far Cry 4 or The Crew – while Kojima Productions can just walk in and get the job done without too many issues.

Fans looking for the definitive Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes experience and who have yet to play it on either the PS4 or Xbox One are advised to look into the PC port. It offers all the additional content, such as the “Jamais Vu” and “Déjà Vu” missions, along with an ultimately better looking experience.

As far as porting goes, Kojima Productions has done a stellar job in the time given and if nothing else, it creates even more anticipation for the release of Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain on PC.

Note: GamingBolt’s Bill Smith also contributed to this article.

Frozenbyte’s Trine returns but this time in the form of the Enchanted Edition which actually brings the original game to the PS4 for the first time. It’s been reworked though and now sports an excellent 1080p resolution and 60 FPS frame rate. The developer has announced a release date for the same – it will be out on December 17th in Europe and December 23rd in North America. Check out the trailer above hyping the same.

Frozenbyte CEO Lauri Hyvärinen stated that, “We’re really excited to bring the origin story of the Trine series to PS4 in a remastered format with all the goodies of its sequel. To celebrate this launch we’ve set special discounts and created a bundle of both Trine games on the PS4.”

Along with the bumped up resolution and frame rate, there will also be stereoscopic 3D support at 720p resolution with online co-op. It will retail for €12.99/$14.99 on the PlayStation Store. Stay tuned for more information when it officially releases.