GamingBolt recently had a long technical chat with Dan Baker, Tim Kipp and Brian Wade from the Nitrous Engine. Though both consoles have been better about it since launching, there are still a large number of games on both the Xbox One and PS4 that are yet to achieve 1080p resolution and 60 FPS. According to Oxide Games, who have created the Nitrous Engine and Ashes of the Singularity (one of the few games out there built for DirectX 12), it’s really just simple math at the end of the day.

Speaking to GamingBolt, the development team said that, “It’s simple math. Last generation consoles and this generation, I think the number I heard quoted was it was 6 times more powerful. That’s great, right? Then you do the math. You realize that if you’re running at 720p and going to 1080p you’ve doubled the number of pixels.

“If you were running 30 frames a second at 720 and you doubled your pixels and wanted to double your frame rate, you just used 4 more per and you have no more perf. Then you additionally want to increase the fidelity. You’ll see the same thing on 4K. It has 4 times the pixels as 1080. You need a GPU 4 times as powerful just to do the same thing you did before just at a higher resolution level with most engines. With Nitrous you actually don’t. That’s probably why you haven’t seen the big jump that some people were expecting.

“It also takes increased bandwidth, etc. etc. When you try to get a game down into the 16 milliseconds consistently, category, it’s amazing how those milliseconds add up. Going to 30 frames per second is like gaining those extra milliseconds really is huge in terms of flexibility you’ve got there. It’s very difficult. Every game generation you want to do something a little more ambitious.

“And to pack additional graphics plus additional AI, plus additional gameplay and everything else into 16 milliseconds can be really, really challenging. Especially when trying to do that consistently. The last thing you want to do is stutter between 60 frames per second and 30. You don’t want to jump back and forth there a whole lot. There’s a lot of people that will argue the development cost and the discipline it takes to make a game run consistently at 16 milliseconds is just very difficult to achieve.

“There are other things you can say too. As resolution increases the computational cost increases. I think we’re one of the only engines out there that have been re-investigating how you render a frame. To some extent, as the resolution increases, not only is there a cost of more pixels but those pixels are being faded in a very simple manner. As we scale up in resolution how can we change our rendering so it’s less expensive? Because were doing the object space lighting we actually would scale better as the resolution increases. If you run our games at 4k, a lot of engines are 3 or 4 times slower – we’re like less than half speed.”

What are your thoughts on this especially since we’re still in the early years of the Xbox One and PS4? Will it ultimately matter if both consoles are still capable of delivering amazing visual fidelity with their games? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Unfortunately, the studio then bit off way more than it could chew with Halo: The Master Chief Collection. During the initial E3 2014 announcement, it was hard to believe that such a feat could be possible. Then again, no die-hard fan could possibly ignore four Halo titles spanning across two generations with combined playlists and seamless movement from one era to the next. There was also the appeal of experiencing Halo 2 in remastered glory, especially since the initial release heralded the dawn of Halo multiplayer for millions and millions of fans. The dream quickly turned into a nightmare when the game went live as it was apparent that match-making was outright broken and the entire product as a whole was riddled with glitches. Some publications like Forbes even stated that it may just be “one of the worst game releases in this decade”. Even now, nearly a year later, the Master Chief Collection can’t be considered “fixed” and this is despite extensive patchwork from 343 Industries on the same.

It was a shame overall because 343 Industries (along with Certain Affinity and Saber Interactive) put in so much work especially when it came to remastering Halo 2 and its cinematics. With Halo 5: Guardians being touted around that time and its multiplayer beta arriving shortly after Master Chief Collection’s launch, the onus was on the developer to make good.

It’s not as if Halo 5: Guardians would be doomed with the same problems. Being built on a single engine as opposed to managing several different ones – especially when it came to key features that were simply unable to make the jump to Xbox One – made the development process easier. Dedicated servers were propped up for multiplayer and there were very few complaints in the beta with regards to matchmaking times and latency. Even when comparing it to Halo 4’s single player campaign, 343 Industries has taken to making much greater strides in both map size, campaign scope and the overall scale of the narrative.

For its part, 343 Industries didn’t make any illusions about what it wanted to achieve with frame rate. The goal was to deliver a 60 FPS experience and while it may be a fantastic marketing term, first person shooters like Halo thrive on the same. The 60 FPS frame rate was also key because 343 Industries would eventually side with a progressive resolution in order to keep it locked, even during action packed sequences and scenarios. We’ve seen this dynamic resolution shifting in the past with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare on the Xbox One, how does Halo 5: Guardians handle it? Unlike those two games, does it manage to maintain its 60 FPS frame rate all throughout?

Franchise development director Frank O’Connor spoke quite a bit about improvements were made following Halo 4. Though it evolved on first Halo engine, there was a significant revamp with the technology. As O’Connor stated, “Some core principles of the gameplay and some familiar pieces of code are still going to be buried in there because, ultimately, Halo has a soul that you want to respect and retain. But technologically, this is a whole new ball game and we’re incredibly excited about it.” It actually got to the point where the visuals were pushed so hard on the Xbox 360 that 343 Industries managed to create a brand new engine for Halo 5: Guardians.

For Halo 5: Guardians, 343 Industries has gone the extra mile for its levels. The maps are much bigger than in Halo 4 and the superb rendering engine brings forth several interesting colour variations based on the “seven distinct art palettes” pattern. Of course, the levels don’t just look good – they feel realistic and alive thanks to the overhauled lighting system that now depends on both the intensity of light sources and the nature of the materials the light is effecting. Physical based rendering creates both realistic looking objects and characters and the engine also ably connects this to the meshes and advanced skin shaders on display.

Check out our full analysis in the video below. Select 1080p and 60fps option for best possible video playback quality.

There was some concern about the alpha effects, especially since these have been a stable for the series even when Bungie was leading. Before Halo 5’s launch, alpha effects seemed to be rendered at lower resolutions but the retail launch shows a significant leap in the same. On screen effects look great and the engine even manages to render its cut scenes and scripted sequences expertly, fully utilizing the available rendering budget to its fullest capacity. Though the cut scenes run at 30 FPS compared to the gameplay’s 60 FPS, the engine is still capable of scaling up the rendering budget available, delivering excellent animations and facial motion capture for a fully immersive cinematic experience. Couple this with HDR lighting, global illumination being fully supported, depth of field, blur, screen space reflections and hue effects, and the visuals of Halo 5: Guardians really become a sight to behold.

It’s a testament to the engine work that one has trouble at times distinguishing between the CG and real time cut scenes. However, plenty of credit must be given to Microsoft for the updates to the Xbox One’s SDK. The low level API is already pretty similar to DirectX 12’s shader library and with the unlocking of a seventh CPU core, it feels like everything works in Halo 5’s favour for the most part.

We say “for the most part” because not everything is a sight for sore eyes. Texture filtering looks a bit odd in some places and you’ll notice blurry textures and surfaces as a result. It’s interesting that this is the case for a first party Xbox One exclusive since texture filtering in general has often come across better on the console in third party games. Also, for all the work done by 343 Industries to ensure a steady 60 FPS frame rate, that dynamically changing resolution tends to jump up and down depending on available GPU resources and it certainly doesn’t help the texture filtering.

However, unlike games like Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt which used dynamic resolution for full HD native rendering of certain scenes, Halo 5’s system tends to alter its behaviour during different modes. The single-player campaign runs at full HD resolution in some places but a reduction in horizontal pixels in other places can be noticed. Image quality comes off as slightly uneven as a result and nearby objects tend to blur out when the switch occurs. The quality hit is greater in multiplayer and at the end of the day, we’re divided on the game’s overall implementation of dynamic resolution. It looks great when it works properly and when it doesn’t, the decline in visual quality can’t be denied.

There’s also the fact that shadow quality can really vary depending on distance. This means jagged edges and more dithering which doesn’t look very good. Character animations also seem to be running at a lower frame rate than the action on screen. It’s strange and, when you begin to pay more attention to it, can come off as jarring. An aggressive LOD system means loss of details in some places. Draw distance in itself seems to lack detail and the same goes for volumetric effects.

It’s also interesting to note the similarity of sacrifices that 343 Industries made with Halo 4 and now Halo 5: Guardians. Halo 4 also delivered detailed interior and exterior environments with high def lighting and bloom but also made sacrifices with its texture filtering and shadow quality. This was done to ensure that the Xbox 360 title hit 720p resolution and 30 FPS, the standard for previous gen consoles. Nonetheless, credit needs to be given to 343 Industries – as with Halo 4, so did it make a number of different compromises to maintain visual fidelity in Halo 5: Guardians while delivering on its promise for 60 frames per second. When you consider the nature of these promises and how they can usually be committed before any programming even begins, it’s extraordinary.

And thankfully, Halo 5: Guardians doesn’t slouch in performance. It runs at a solid 60 frames per second and it’s crazy how even a few hours into the game we witnessed no drops at all (and that’s taking into account the impressive amount of post processing effects that are on display).

There will always be concerns over a game’s frame rate versus resolution and it doesn’t seem likely that any single game approaches the golden standard of 1080p/60 FPS perfectly any time soon. Halo 5: Guardians goes in a different direction though, prioritizing its frame rate and treating it as one of the key attractions of the experience, even if some corners have to be cut here and there. Texture filtering, shadow quality and image quality could have been better but compromises were made to ensure a consistent 60 FPS frame rate and we can’t say we aren’t happy with it. Image dithering issues aside, 60 FPS continues to prove its worth as a game changer, especially in Halo 5: Guardians.

When Halo 5: Guardians first entered into the hands of players, it was with the multiplayer beta in January that was restricted to a native 720p resolution. The game has come a long way since then and if the Xbox One’s GPU wasn’t a limiting factor, this could have been the best looking first person shooter of this generation. Even as it is now, Halo 5: Guardians is still a great looking game. Compromises were made in order to maintain a consistent frame rate performance but the visual fidelity was still kept at a high standard. Regardless of whether it becomes the trend setter for first person shooters like Bungie’s trail-blazing iterations did remains to be seen. For now, you can be satisfied that Halo 5: Guardians looks good and feels good even with the odd imperfection here and there.

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.

343 Industries’ Halo 5: Guardians is one of the most anticipated titles of the year and will herald the first truly next gen Halo title for the Xbox One. It still has a ways to go in development though, especially when it comes to the resolution.

GamingBolt spoke to lead producer Chris Lee about the campaign and multiplayer. Will both modes run at 60 FPS? According to Lee, they indeed will.

However, when asked if the resolution would be at 1080p, Lee stated that, “So, we’re still optimizing the game as we haven’t launched so we haven’t locked in our final resolution yet. But we will talk more about that in the future.”

On whether the Xbox One’s eSRAM was causing problems with programming, especially since many developers have expressed their concerns with the memory, Lee said that, “It didn’t cause any issues for us.”

It’s obvious that there’s still a fair bit of optimization left before the release of Halo 5: Guardians in October so keep the hope alive. Also let us know what you think of the game’s resolution and frame rate in the comments.

DICE impressed quite a few of us with its reveal trailer for Star Wars: Battlefront. Rendered in-engine, the footage showcased an absurd amount of detail and technical wizardry. It looks ambitious and producer Craig Mcleod says that the development team is committed having it run at 60 FPS across all platforms.

“We’re making sure, first and foremost, to ensure it runs at 60 frames per second on everything because that’s what delivers the best gameplay experience.

“When you couple the talent that we have in the office with the technology and new generation of consoles has allowed us to achieve, that’s how you can get these environments that you’re seeing which simply wasn’t possible before.”

But will it run at 1080p resolution on the PS4 and Xbox One? After today’s reveal trailer, we’re not too sure but we are excited to find out. Star Wars: Battlefront is out on November 17th for PS4, Xbox One and PC.

(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.

Swordtales’ Toren, a fantasy adventure game with a dark tone, may not be the biggest blockbuster out for the PS4 (along with PC and Mac) in 2015 but it’s stylings and overall atmosphere have certainly caught our attention. The question as always though is whether it isn’t heading to the Xbox One as well.

Speaking to creative director Alessandro Martinello, he stated that the lack of an Xbox One release was because, “We had early access to the PS4 dev kit and this gave us the certainty that we will launch on Sony’s console. But we don’t exclude the possibility of release in other platforms.”

As for the game’s art style, Martinello talked about the power of the PS4’s GPU in handling the game compared to your average PC. “The game runs much faster than a regular PC, and we haven’t made changes to use all this power. We intend to use more realistic and detailed lighting on PS4, but our main goal is to guarantee the 60 fps performance.”

Thoughts on Toren possibly hitting Xbox One as well? Let us know in the comments.