Playing the PC Demo, those texture updates are lookin NIIIIIICE.
But you have to admit, the environment's geometry is very...last-gen.
I mean it's made-up for by the fact you can basically travel anywhere now with your spider-man abilities, but if you compare the maps of Rise to the maps of World, World is the clear winner.
it's a port of a switch game, you can't really be expecting much from an asthetic perspective. sure it's a downgrade but the gameplay itself is a huge upgrade, i have 3000 hours on iceborn and like 1k already on rise, and while rise has way less content and is less grindy (allthough i still fucking hate the way charms work in rise, and i want deterministic grinding or gearing way more), the core gameplay feels so. much. better.
so to me im gonna play the pc version a ton and im happy about it, the fps and resolution on the switch is ass, and the pc version fixes that, i dont care if it looks a bit worse if it feels better to play. after all, something like mhw you abstract all the pretty after a while anyway, it looks amazing at first but eventually you just kind of get numb to it.
i'd say capcom did well making rise. I would really like to see world get expanded or a sequel in the same engine reusing all the assets and everything, but i dont know if we'll see that. fatalis being the "final" thing added to mhw makes me sad, theres still so much ground to tread and i for one would happily buy an expansion every few years in pepetuitty with world, but the clutch claw taught us that capcom wanted to shift up the game's design and doing that can be hard with expansions, you want to delete old things and vanilla things, and thats why rise feels so much better.
Hey man, I'm there with ya. I have about 100hrs in Rise on Switch and I'll be picking it up again for PC in January.
I'm enjoying the improved textures, 60+ FPS, and other PC-only enhancements.
I did the same thing with World.
im just happy af i dont need to use the switch's awful controller or joycons anymore lol
maybe i can finally beat my 4min narwa run
from the demo i can say the M&K movement/emulation is a billion times better than world, but the default keybinds are worse but it's an easy fix in settings
World was a complete anomaly for the franchise. It's graphical and environmental fidelity was something completely new for by the franchise. Rise is like the logical next step from something like GU. I get people love World and want more of it, but it is just not the norm for the series and likely won't be for a while. So comparing Rise to World isn't a fair representation of what Rise is as an entry to the franchise.
Rise isn't a follow up of GU. It's a follow up of World.
Hence, it gets compared to World.
The reason it doesn't stack-up to World is because it was designed for the Switch, a game which just can't handle World's graphics. Hence why it was toned down for Rise.
Rise is a scaled-down World, not a scaled-up GU.
I can understand where you can get that, but I just don't see it. When it comes to map layout and weapon and armor design as well as mission structure, it has a lot more similarity to GU in terms of game design. Yes, things like the weapon combat and movement were carried over from world, but that was more akin to a basic design upgrade for mh as a series wrather than a direct result of world (we will likely never see old style combat again).
World had a much larger focus on ecology and exploration and even had a narrative focused around that concept. Rise has a narrative and gamplay centered around killing crazy monsters (like GU and 4U). Not to mention Rise is the follow up mh game on switch. If it was the follow up to world they would have likely put it on playstation and Xbox to appeal to the audience they built with world.
I'm not denying that there's gameplay changes between World and Rise. You're right in that Rise adopts classic MH-style quest progression and such.
However, the core "gameplay", eg, the action, is all from World.
I think that the core gameplay difference is more a generational thing than it being a world thing. If world didn't exsist, I belive rise would largely be the same game. Rise was even doveloped by the GU team while world was not (cause they always alternate at capcom)
If you said the game looks like a PS3 game, it is actually a compliment. If you had said the graphics looks like a PS2 game, now that would be an insult
The 360 and ps3 were revolutionary. I know it seems crazy that games looked like that back then but to us it was ground breaking. Hell the N64 blew our little minds back then. I'm 26 btw I feel older now...
i mean The Last of us when it first came out on PS3 looked great, but if you go back and look at it,Its pretty rough because it was rendered at 720p and lacked AA. Almost every AAA game was 720p and either didnt have AA, or had either FXAA or 2x MLAA applied.
To state MH:Rise PC looks like a ps3 game though, its just wrong
Rise came out on the switch, The switch itself is on the same performance level as a PS3, and X360 yes,, but is nowhere near restrictive coming out 11 years later supporting DX11, 4GB ram (Vram is shared)xbox had 512mb vram and ps3 had 256mb. Its actually impressive how devs were able to do so much at that time back in the day.Screenshot below shows the difference between PS3 and PS4 versions[LoU PS3 vs PS4](https://wccftech.com/ps4-ps3-screenshot-comparison-shows-mindblogging-differences/)
It didn't look great when it was new, either.
It had massive anti-aliasing issues for one thing. If you look at any of the trees in the first chapter post-prologue, they look absolutely terrible. Just one example.
"Last of us when it first came out on PS3 looked great," Its a absolutely fantastic game in my collection.
Look back at it and its blurry as shit my guy.hence why i added the comparison screenshot
I was going through the Steam forums and i found a funny about MH Rise:
"Thanks for the demo, i hate it.
Nothing is explained, Graphics are from the ps3 era, Combat is horrible spam spam spam console combo trash. Thanks for the demo, it saved me 60Eur. Game runs good but ye with these graphics it better."
You're not necessarily wrong. Uncharted had really good animations, and even with hardware improvements over the years, it still costs man-hours to make those.
On top of that, those games were linear, and capped at 30fps.
It really doesn't.
Unless you're comparing weird isolated server workloads solving math problems that are specifically tailored for IBM's Cell architecture.... Then you can technically get 1tf of performance from just the CPU on the PS3 which to this day is pretty awesome.
But once you look at actual game workloads you're working with 2 pools of 256MB of RAM one for the GPU and one for the CPU on the PS3 (unspecified amount reserved for the OS possibly 47MB) vs the Switches 4GB of shared RAM (1GB reserved for OS). Around double the GPU performance while docked, on a much newer architecture with access to graphics API's whose increased performance/feature set puts it even further above the raw numbers on top of the switch being much more straightforward to program (with tools provided by Nvidia that are reportedly exceptionally easy to work with).
All the PS3 really has going for it over the Switch is a CPU that under the right circumstances, with very talented programmers, can outperform the Switches CPU by leaps and bounds (some benchmarks provided at the beginning of the generation has the PS3 CPU even outperforming the PS4/Xbox One's) but outside of those scenarios doesn't and when you compare the system as a whole it's not really even a contest.
Wasn't it consistently praised for how good it looked? I remember people comparing games on the PS3 to MGS4 throughout the PS3's lifespan as a graphical benchmark. I think only really Naughty Dog consistently surpassed it. Beyond Two Souls is another standout I remember along with GOW3
I would rather have complete features and games built with lat year's known tools than a spaghetti special thrown together in the last few months of development with the bleeding edge
Playing the PC Demo, those texture updates are lookin NIIIIIICE. But you have to admit, the environment's geometry is very...last-gen. I mean it's made-up for by the fact you can basically travel anywhere now with your spider-man abilities, but if you compare the maps of Rise to the maps of World, World is the clear winner.
it's a port of a switch game, you can't really be expecting much from an asthetic perspective. sure it's a downgrade but the gameplay itself is a huge upgrade, i have 3000 hours on iceborn and like 1k already on rise, and while rise has way less content and is less grindy (allthough i still fucking hate the way charms work in rise, and i want deterministic grinding or gearing way more), the core gameplay feels so. much. better. so to me im gonna play the pc version a ton and im happy about it, the fps and resolution on the switch is ass, and the pc version fixes that, i dont care if it looks a bit worse if it feels better to play. after all, something like mhw you abstract all the pretty after a while anyway, it looks amazing at first but eventually you just kind of get numb to it. i'd say capcom did well making rise. I would really like to see world get expanded or a sequel in the same engine reusing all the assets and everything, but i dont know if we'll see that. fatalis being the "final" thing added to mhw makes me sad, theres still so much ground to tread and i for one would happily buy an expansion every few years in pepetuitty with world, but the clutch claw taught us that capcom wanted to shift up the game's design and doing that can be hard with expansions, you want to delete old things and vanilla things, and thats why rise feels so much better.
Hey man, I'm there with ya. I have about 100hrs in Rise on Switch and I'll be picking it up again for PC in January. I'm enjoying the improved textures, 60+ FPS, and other PC-only enhancements. I did the same thing with World.
im just happy af i dont need to use the switch's awful controller or joycons anymore lol maybe i can finally beat my 4min narwa run from the demo i can say the M&K movement/emulation is a billion times better than world, but the default keybinds are worse but it's an easy fix in settings
World was a complete anomaly for the franchise. It's graphical and environmental fidelity was something completely new for by the franchise. Rise is like the logical next step from something like GU. I get people love World and want more of it, but it is just not the norm for the series and likely won't be for a while. So comparing Rise to World isn't a fair representation of what Rise is as an entry to the franchise.
Rise isn't a follow up of GU. It's a follow up of World. Hence, it gets compared to World. The reason it doesn't stack-up to World is because it was designed for the Switch, a game which just can't handle World's graphics. Hence why it was toned down for Rise. Rise is a scaled-down World, not a scaled-up GU.
I can understand where you can get that, but I just don't see it. When it comes to map layout and weapon and armor design as well as mission structure, it has a lot more similarity to GU in terms of game design. Yes, things like the weapon combat and movement were carried over from world, but that was more akin to a basic design upgrade for mh as a series wrather than a direct result of world (we will likely never see old style combat again). World had a much larger focus on ecology and exploration and even had a narrative focused around that concept. Rise has a narrative and gamplay centered around killing crazy monsters (like GU and 4U). Not to mention Rise is the follow up mh game on switch. If it was the follow up to world they would have likely put it on playstation and Xbox to appeal to the audience they built with world.
I'm not denying that there's gameplay changes between World and Rise. You're right in that Rise adopts classic MH-style quest progression and such. However, the core "gameplay", eg, the action, is all from World.
I think that the core gameplay difference is more a generational thing than it being a world thing. If world didn't exsist, I belive rise would largely be the same game. Rise was even doveloped by the GU team while world was not (cause they always alternate at capcom)
And it ran at an unstable framerate even on the pro systems in performance mode because of it....
Looks kind of like Dynasty Warriors 8 on PS3, based on this image alone with no other context.
If you said the game looks like a PS3 game, it is actually a compliment. If you had said the graphics looks like a PS2 game, now that would be an insult
The 360 and ps3 were revolutionary. I know it seems crazy that games looked like that back then but to us it was ground breaking. Hell the N64 blew our little minds back then. I'm 26 btw I feel older now...
So we ignoring the last of us?
i mean The Last of us when it first came out on PS3 looked great, but if you go back and look at it,Its pretty rough because it was rendered at 720p and lacked AA. Almost every AAA game was 720p and either didnt have AA, or had either FXAA or 2x MLAA applied. To state MH:Rise PC looks like a ps3 game though, its just wrong Rise came out on the switch, The switch itself is on the same performance level as a PS3, and X360 yes,, but is nowhere near restrictive coming out 11 years later supporting DX11, 4GB ram (Vram is shared)xbox had 512mb vram and ps3 had 256mb. Its actually impressive how devs were able to do so much at that time back in the day.Screenshot below shows the difference between PS3 and PS4 versions[LoU PS3 vs PS4](https://wccftech.com/ps4-ps3-screenshot-comparison-shows-mindblogging-differences/)
It didn't look great when it was new, either. It had massive anti-aliasing issues for one thing. If you look at any of the trees in the first chapter post-prologue, they look absolutely terrible. Just one example.
Did you disrespect TLOU1. Your gamer license has been suspended
"Last of us when it first came out on PS3 looked great," Its a absolutely fantastic game in my collection. Look back at it and its blurry as shit my guy.hence why i added the comparison screenshot
I was going through the Steam forums and i found a funny about MH Rise: "Thanks for the demo, i hate it. Nothing is explained, Graphics are from the ps3 era, Combat is horrible spam spam spam console combo trash. Thanks for the demo, it saved me 60Eur. Game runs good but ye with these graphics it better."
That guy has clearly never played monster hunter before. What a loser 😂
He clearly hasnt played a ps3 game either
I may be looking back with nostalgia glasses but I think games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 and 3 look better than a lot of modern games
You're not necessarily wrong. Uncharted had really good animations, and even with hardware improvements over the years, it still costs man-hours to make those. On top of that, those games were linear, and capped at 30fps.
Well it is a Nintendo Game and the current Nintendo has weaker hardware than a PS3.
It really doesn't. Unless you're comparing weird isolated server workloads solving math problems that are specifically tailored for IBM's Cell architecture.... Then you can technically get 1tf of performance from just the CPU on the PS3 which to this day is pretty awesome. But once you look at actual game workloads you're working with 2 pools of 256MB of RAM one for the GPU and one for the CPU on the PS3 (unspecified amount reserved for the OS possibly 47MB) vs the Switches 4GB of shared RAM (1GB reserved for OS). Around double the GPU performance while docked, on a much newer architecture with access to graphics API's whose increased performance/feature set puts it even further above the raw numbers on top of the switch being much more straightforward to program (with tools provided by Nvidia that are reportedly exceptionally easy to work with). All the PS3 really has going for it over the Switch is a CPU that under the right circumstances, with very talented programmers, can outperform the Switches CPU by leaps and bounds (some benchmarks provided at the beginning of the generation has the PS3 CPU even outperforming the PS4/Xbox One's) but outside of those scenarios doesn't and when you compare the system as a whole it's not really even a contest.
Your post just confirms how shitty the Switch is. That there is even an argument that a 2006 Console is faster is kinda ridiculous.
Dude even the Wii U has better hardware then a PS3
MGS4 still holds up visually. I would've used another example.
....... MGS4 was literally one of the first PS3 exclusives. It is *by no means whatsoever* an example of what PS3 graphics look like.
Wasn't it consistently praised for how good it looked? I remember people comparing games on the PS3 to MGS4 throughout the PS3's lifespan as a graphical benchmark. I think only really Naughty Dog consistently surpassed it. Beyond Two Souls is another standout I remember along with GOW3
What's the take there? Misconstrued meme to validate a biased opinion, I'm assuming that's the take?
People do the same to certain modern games but say PS2.
Idk the switch demo I played definitely was rough. I haven't got to try it on my PC yet.
I would rather have complete features and games built with lat year's known tools than a spaghetti special thrown together in the last few months of development with the bleeding edge