Wishing to play...

What graphics card will run this as pictured below?



BTW It's Metal Gear Solid 3, looks like they've taken it true 3D now, and it's a brilliant job.

Dont think they be making a PC port this, but if they did (and actually did a good port of it unlike the MGS2:Substance one I purchased), will likely want a 64mb card recommended, 32mb minimum.

Anyhow, I be awaiting the re-release of MGS3, couldn't stand the original edition when I rented it due to no radar, which involved in constantly having to switch to first-person view to check your surroundings for enemies, Substinence supposed to have a SplinterCell-style 3rd-person camera now.

Sorry, but I'm not arguing against your claim, but those models and textures, with the added effects look to me more demanding than just 64MB card.

A PC game like Painkiller looks much better, and runs fine on anything mid-spec like a Geforce3, anyhow, if they didn't have any options to scale back on the graphical effects, they're doing themselves more harm then good.

Graphical quality on MGS3 looks pretty much around the same as MGS2 (good looking models, low-poly areas with decent texturing), so I cant really see the specs being any higher then that unless something went wrong in the development process, more-so since it ran fine on a weak system like the PS2.

I agree with Genexi2, at least in that screenshot models and textures aren't so great to demmand more than 64MB.

I purchased MGS2 for pc too, and well, more than a port it seems to me it's a ps2-mgs2 emulator x) I think I'm not buying MGS3 this time (if a 'port' is made)

MGS3 is a PS2 game, I dont think all the memory added up in a PS2 comes much over 32megs, so I doubt most 64meg cards would have a problem. I mean were's the normal mapping in that shot, the floor is a 'flat' tiled texture, dont get me wrong it looks good but not technically that demanding.

Also if you look at how blurry the floor is it's clearly a very small texture, likewise the picture in on the wall is a blurry hence a tiny texture. The characters don't have shadows. Also if you look at the edges of the characters you can see lots of straight lines so they aren't that high poly.

It's a nice looking scene and would probably look great when moving, but as has already been said, not very demanding on even fairly historic technology.

64MB card will do fine, but really the graphic memory doesnt tell much about the cards processing power.. I have FX5700LE 256MB, its not very fast but has alot of memory.

Could someone please post a PC screenshot demostrating what you guys are talking about, I would like to see a screenshot with all these latest special effects. Can't wait till I get my GeForce 6600 GT, having to get a new motherboard to get the PCI version.

Go to your favorite game review site and look at pictures.

But why is that guy in the red baret firing blanks?

That doesn't look that good. The fact that it's a PS2 game tells you that a GeForce 3 (Xbox GFX) would be able to best it.

I wish all PC games could be like this, looking nice while not demanding.

i think this looks verrry good for the type game it is... and should run fine on a GeForce2 even... but deinitely on the low end GeForceFX5200 and Radeon 9200...

there's not apparent shader effects ('cept maybe a lil vertex lighting) in the shot, and the shadowing (if any) is minimal and faked...

hey, any card that can handle Blitz3D can probably handle the scene pictured... i think that this can be done in Blitz3D quite easily...

--Mike

Except the character models the scene is very bland, besides that screenshot is made up. Since in the game those two types of enemies are never together in that building.

Not in the same league as Resident Evil 4.

Is GameSpot faking ingame screenshots? It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!

Yeah I agree with everyone. This would have been top-notch
visuals 5-10 years ago. The only thing that makes it stand out at
all is the light-bloom effect.

Jono: check out 3DMark Screenshots to get a feel for
top-end visuals. They make a new one every year.

And Enay: That's right! Resident Evil 4 (for the Gamecube)
beats all games of that generation for visuals. Period.

Well I must be stuck in the dark ages, along with my PC, because this game looks stunning to me, and I'd probably get hours of enjoyment. I'll check out the 3DMarks Screnshots aswell, to see what I'm missing.

> And Enay: That's right! Resident Evil 4 (for the Gamecube)
> beats all games of that generation for visuals. Period.

Don't forgot the PS2. But in that game despite it having incredible graphics, it's the innovative gameplay where that game shines.

Jono, take a look at screenshots for games like Call of Duty 2, Fear to see some impressive gfx, mind the shots of COD2 on some sites look like crap next to the game running on my Geforce6600 card, even so they still have normal mapping and stuff on show ;)

Never the less, pretty much everyone here would be willing to commit multiple felonies to get graphics like that in their games. I know I would.

Which then runs about 8 fps on the most tricked out, wet dream, gaming rig you can imagine.

Yeah, that would be amazing visuals in a Blitz game but there aren't a whole lot of people around here who could pull that off. What's sad is even if someone did ... those gfx are still old and would be considered below the current standard on the PC.

What exactly is it in that screenshot that couldn't be done in blitz? Good artist+ Clever animation layout is all thats really required. You could beat it if DXTC worked in blitz...


..Or am I missing something big?

Hmmm ... considering how little VRAM the PS2 has I'd imagine you could easily recreate that scene in Blitz even without the texture compression. None of the textures look high res anyway.

I should have said that it was possible, and much better could be done in blitz if DXTC were implemented :D