This game was pushing the hardware to the absolute limit to a point that the console just can't do anymore, just like Shadow of the colossus and the cpu pushing game: god of war 2.
@@od13166 nope. Ps2 was (at least on paper) 9 or 10 times less powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360. But this and god of war 2 looked like early ps3 games.
@John both have 512 mb of ram. The difference was due to hardware design. The ps3 shares the ram and vram splitted in two bipartitions where as the 360 has one single ram for all functions.
@@Javierdepp las que serían pregrabada son las que mostraban escena con personas reales y de períodos, pero la gran memoria son del motor del juego en tiempo real y por eso de los bajones de fps
Take into account that while the framerates waver, they waver to suit the situation. Even though the 360 remains consistent, it feels more animated and it just doesn't feel right to me The ps3's framerate by no means makes it bad, but the 360 has great computing power.
PS2 version will also run in Progressive Scan. It's not enabled in the menu, but you can enable it with either the PS2 Free MCBoot or HDTVX Boot Disk. Game looks even better this way.
I actually really like the way the PS2 version looks. PS3 is close but the PS2 has depth of field, i think some kind of haze and the rain during the bridge cutscene.
Bruce Wayne I think I remember hearing in a commentary over Arkham City that framerate issues are more prevelant in PS3 ports than 360's because since Xbox is a Microsoft product, its specs were easier to port from PC's.
although HD gave the game its clean look, i am a sucker for vintage (gc and n64 are my home consoles) so the anti aliasing and frame drops give it an aged touch which i will always like.
Knowing that Kojima originally planned to release Snake Eater for the PS3 back in the day, the drops in the cutscenes as seen in the HD Collection port might've been identical if the game was originally built for that system. Sure, most developers had a hard time developing for the PS3 early in the system's life, but if the game maintained the polygon count in all assets it might've performed just like the HD Collection counterpart and even maintaining a full HD resolution.
LOL. You're kidding right? Kojima started story writing and development for this game in late 2001. This game released in 2004. Developers didn't even get wind of the PS3 until very late 2003 to early 2004. This game was definitely meant to be a PS2 game. It's just waaay to ambitious for a PS2 title just as most of the games released 2004 and afterward were.
Chrisjb1983 No OP's right. Kojima did plan for this to be on PS3 but couldn't do it as the ps3 was still far off from launch. It was supposed to be that each installment released on the next generation console (MGS1 on PS1, MGS2 on PS2 etc.) But he settled for the PS2.
Gixxer Fixxer Although I would of loved it very much so, highly doubtful. MGS3 was a technical marvel on the PS2 (fact it could even run on the system) and wouldn't have veered much better as a launch title on the PS3 versus what we eventually got with the HD remaster. Still wouldn't of been on par with what we got with MGS 4 if MGS 3 was in fact a launch title.
+TheBarlettan Games always look better further down a consoles life cycle. Don't understand why. I guess poor console hardware is hard to optimize for and companies don't push the boundries until years later. Look at Resident Evil 1(1995) vs. Parasite Eve 2(2000) in the Playstation 1 life. Look at Resident Evil:Code Veronica (2001) vs. Resident Evil 4 (2005) in the Playstation 2 life. Look at Resistance:FOM (2006) vs. MGS 5:PP (2015) in the Playstation 3 life. MGS 4 was pretty sexy for the Ps3 too and that was released in 2008, but that game was really pushing the threshold of game producers at the time. Not to mention, that game had been in development to 4 years and was supposed to be a launch title for the Ps3. I would even take a look at the 360 side of things and compare Gears of War 1 (2006) to Gears of War 3 (2011). Much more polished game.
@@charlieharrington9555 Not at all. Both ps3 and 360 are identical, for some reasons the ps3 versions seems more contrasted on this video, that's why it seems more "detailed"
Soldado Calango To be fair, many of us X1, PS4 gamers are of the same mindset. Just make good to great games that look decent play decent and I am good, don't really care about frame dips, resolution.
This is proof that better hardware doesn't mean better versions of games. Because of the weird architecture of the PS3, it's hard to make games for it. This is obviously a good port, but if you have a publisher who lazily ports games, they just emulate it, losing a lot of frames.
You should’ve put a gameplay segment destroying the helicopter before reaching to Ocelot 1st boss battle. When the helicopter explodes frame rate drops to 5fps even on PS3.
@@MhmedProductionz How was i supposed to know? Everyone here praises the PS2 over PS3 for no reason Also, what's wrong with replying to a comment 7 years old?
@@NaldinhoGX Most sources I managed to find suggest that it's a consequence of the higher resolution the game is running in. Apparently, the same thing happens if you increase the resolution of the original game in an emulator. Could be an oversight on the Bluepoint's part, but I think it was probably just outside of the scope of their project.
Makes sense, actually. The same thing is true for PC games, I've noticed, such as GTAV - when you play it at 4K, the same thing happens. They probably just didn't tune it to adjust the effect to the new resolution. Shadow of the Colossus Remaster (from Bluepoint, too) is also missing a lot of Depth of Field effects. I've also read people saying it could be because of how these effects were programmed for the PlayStation 2 hardware (GPU, most specifically), making them difficult to 'translate' for other systems.@@vesselinkrastev
***** He's not wrong. The Xbox blew the PS2 out of the water in terms of power. The only reason the PS2 survived so long was because nobody could afford a PS3 until years into its cycle.
Nikolai Azerbaijan The only reason it survived? If you read the PS2 had an unsurpassed number of games even after the PS3 came out. Its like you literally didn't exist between 2002-2006. The Xbox was a powerhouse but that didn't mean anything if it had nothing special to show for it like maybe a couple big exclusives.
Nikolai Azerbaijan PS2 lasted so long because of its library, but the Xbox was a beast due to its hardware. The PS2 wasn't very powerful at all, though.
Wow... on ps2 there were 15 fps drops??? I had no idea, back then i was fully concentrated on story and gameplay. Nowadays i would probably call it unplayable. This is so far one of my favourite games. So much feelings...
In all honesty, the ps3 really does have more selective framerates. While the 360 stays closer to 60, the ps3 wavers to more accurately depict the scene. However, it can also be chalked up to the lack of computing power, although the ps3 has a better GPU
The 360 actually has a better and more modern GPU than the PS3, it's just that PS3 is much more difficult to develop for because the architecture it uses is quite uncommon/unique.
What i meant was that because the games were all PS2 and PSP games at first that I would think that the PS3 would have the best version of the games but by this video, the 360 keeps it up at a good 60 fps
Louis Tusset I dont know why people are bitching about framerate but anyway if you don't know the frames only drops during cutscenes but during gameplay the frames are solid 60fps but dont blame kojima because Bluepoint games ported this game not him
PS2 version had the best shader effects. For some reason, hd collections never had that shiny, "yellowish" shader effect which I really liked back in PS2. It was stunning for its time. Any reason for not including that shader?
The PS2 has no shaders. What yellowish shader effect are you referring to? Some PS2 games sort of simulated a shader or HDR effect but the PS3 and 360 GPUs were made to support tons of shaders and true HDR. Sometimes PS2 games might have oversatured the image to cover things up. Blinded by the light!
Idk what it is. Pcsx2 hardware mode can't show it but you can easily see the yellowish effect in the software mode. Hardware mode is just like PS3 one. Try it out sometime.
Hardware mode is nothing like PS3. Cut the bullshit, you obviously never played HD collection or never ran this game in PCSX2 yourself, otherwise you'd know how different renders are. PCSX2 in DX11 HW kills all the post process effects, which are perfectly present in HD Collection on both X360 and PS3. BTW, It is now possible with OpenGL and a few blending tweaks to run MGS3 with all the post process effects on at a pretty high resolution, with widescreen hack enabled it almost makes the game excatly like HD Collection, but poor performance on sub 4Ghz CPUs and low resolution interface still break the xperience. P.S. All the tints and shader are there in PS3, check your old TV to which you connected your PS2, maybe that created something you don't see(because you shouldn't) in HD Collection for whatever reason.
Sadly I could never emulate very well this game in PC and I don't know why, in some parts the game run with 30 fps but in others the fps drop to 12 and 8 and the sound was horrible when that happened. I tested it in two different PCs but nothing changed........I could never play this wonderful game because of that problem and it frustrated me a lot.
+Jahman Type in "automated PCSX2 builds" in the search bar. These are usually "up-to-date" daily revisions of the PCSX2 emulator. These newer versions have OpenGL capabilities which allow for a more accurate render of MGS3. Also, in some cases, higher framerate as well. Another thing, while software mode makes the game look shit and slow, there is a work-around. At least with the "slow" aspect of the render type. If you have a four core CPU, change rendering threads (in the video section) to three, or if your CPU is better than most, to four. The game should attain a stable sixty frames per second, excluding the occasional frame drop. In that case, experiment with the speed hacks (which can sometimes help).
frame pacing on consoles has always been different anyway, they do get lower fps sometimes, but the way the frame renders makes it hard to notice slowdowns or stutters, even so, some new console games have stutter and fps drops and frame pacing issues PC-style. I am a PC gamer, but the way frames are rendered on some console games is brilliant.
Just take a fucking hdmi recorder, that thing gave you the native resolution of the source (Xbox 360 runs in less resolution, but runs smoother and didn't have framedrops than the ps3 version, when its runner in a little bit higher resolution 720p but poorly optimizated). and 600p and 624p are diferent resolutions: 600p it's a 16:9 aspect ratio resolution, meanwhile 624p it's a 16:10 aspect ratio resolution, pretty common on the ported games from 6th generation to 7th generation, because is more efficiently take the image without lose of information (choping out the image), or unwanted effects (like ghostly or poping objects, because this games are made for run on 4:3 resolutions),
Carlos38841 Nope the game runs in 720P on Xbox. And you can't get the games resolution from metadata as you suggest, because the Xbox scales any native resolution to either 720 or 1080.
+EPICx BE4STM0DE yep. It's just some games use so much resources they end up like this. Mgs 3 looks great but runs badly on ps2. Since the 360 is capable of holding stronger games, mgs 3 runs beautifully on it. If you want me to explain more I can. Sorry I rushed this a bit.
And that was from 1985. All F-Zero games, from the SNES to F-Zero GX, ran at 60FPS. There's a video on UA-cam about GX's framerate with a similar way of measuring it as this video did, and even at 480p F-Zero GX didn't drop a frame below 60FPS.
i dont get why Snake hesitated cause he had a tranquilizer gun during that scene. All he would have done was put her to sleep. He didnt have to worry about hurting her.
I've got the game on PS3 and I've noticed some crazy fps drops plus some graphical errors most noticed during the cutscenes of snake escaping in the WIG, the lake was all messed up
it seems that PS3 had better graphics but also less steady frame rates. I think it's kinda the same logic as playing on Ultra on a PC for a game that CAN run 60fps but will drop at times while also having a game that plays on high/medium but stays at a steady 60fps. either way both consoles had their ups and downs. Yes I am commenting on a video from 8 years ago but that's cuz this game cannot be forgotten lmao
The Xbox xenos had 10mb of embedded ram, which gave it a massive bandwidth. PS3 rsx on the other hand didn't have that, it only had about 25gb to its vram., that's why the ps3 bogs down when there are more alpha effects on screen (smoke, fog, fire etc).
Yeah, it's actually laughable how bad the PS3 cell architecture really was. Dropping frames all the way down to 24 fps in a previous gen game. Pathetic
Did the game run at 1080p on the newer consoles? If that was the case, I can't complain, since it would still be 4x the original frame rate (from the 360) at 6 times the original resolution, and we can't demand perfect optimization from a port. However, If it was just 720p, it's lame.
+mrjacob0101 definitely buy the HD collection. I would say playing Peace Walker on the HD collection is way better than emulating the PSP version. Metal Gear Solid 3 has some textures you couldn't see (such as Snakes mask in the beginning) unless you were playing the HD version. The HD version also supports full screen and always runs above 30 fps, which is really good because you don't have giant black blocks blocking half the screen during cutscenes.
+mrjacob0101 definitely buy the HD collection. I would say playing Peace Walker on the HD collection is way better than emulating the PSP version. Metal Gear Solid 3 has some textures you couldn't see (such as Snakes mask in the beginning) unless you were playing the HD version. The HD version also supports full screen and always runs above 30 fps, which is really good because you don't have giant black blocks blocking half the screen during cutscenes.
Don't get me wrong, I love this game. The story and the characters were really awesome but the gameplay and controls were god awful and made this game so much harder than it had to be. It's like Kojima was forcing you to constantly sneak and never shoot anyone because the gun controls were so terrible. I'm glad they changed this in MGS4 and made it much more intuitive.
umm isn't that the point of metal gear where you are barely supposed to shoot anyone unless you have to? That's called stealth man. Mgs4 controls were more for people who went loud and alerts a lot because the third person aim was better and you can move while aiming. mgs3 only allowed to stay in 1 position so you can aim at a person's head while they are not looking and eliminate them off. Guess you're not the stealth type. And it's been like this since mgs1.
The 3DS version actually updated Snake Eater by A LOT where the controls would be like MGS4 and Peace Walker. The 3DS version added crouch walking, third person shoulder aim, auto aim, you can walk while aiming, being able to actually reload without unequip/equip the gun, and the circle pad pro which offers better camera control like MGS4 or if you don't have the circle pad pro then the camera movement would be like peace walker since you need the 4 buttons to move the camera. It added new textures to the game and it especially remade snake's look. It added better shading for the 3D mode to take affect really nicely. The only downside to the 3DS version is the crap resolution and it locks at 20 fps and it drops down a lot to like 10 fps or 5 fps whenever there is so much stuff on the screen like spamming smoke grenades, too many explosions or when you are fighting The Fury. The moment he sprays a lot of fire on the screen is when the frame rate goes really crap. Other than that, the game is really good on 3DS and it's great for people who like games on the go.
We need the HD collection outside of Peacewalker to be backwards compatible so we can get more consistent 60fps. Still, ironically, the 360 has the most consistent output of all.
capucapu loloco If you look closely, the textures on the 360 version are slightly blurrier than on the PS3. That could be because the 360 uses DVDs as opposed to the PS3, which used Blu-Ray, so there's less space for textures, which means the textures might be more compressed. It's not a huge difference, and I'd personally prefer to have the framerate dip a little less, so I'd spring for the Xbox 360 version. But, no, they're not quite the same.
WTF?? I saw the video in 4K, and the blurred textures are in the ps3 version. This because the texture filtering is better in x360 version. So, better texture filtering, better fps... that means the 360 version is the best.
OK 360 definitely has better framerate and ps3 does look a little bit sharper when you pay attention but really I'm surprised that these issues even exist. It's a ps2 game! I guess I'm expecting too much from 360/ps3. As for the game, it's one of the best I've played no matter the system.
I don't give a damn that this game has a better frame rate on PS3/360. I've beaten the game like 10 times on PS2 and i enoyed every time. And i'll do it again if i could but my PS2 passed away like a year ago after almost 10 years of abuse from me and my brother. So many games played. So many memories :')
Folks think that 6th gen consoles had 60fps games, when they don't talk about performance of these games: -Shadow of colossus PS2 -Half life 2 OG Xbox -GTAs PS2 -God of War PS2 -Halo CE OG Xbox If anything there were PS2/OG Xbox games that had abysmal performance just like PS3/Xbox 360 games
I still got my PS2 copies of MGS2 and MGS3. I got the HD versions on the Xbox 360. I could have got the PS3 version, in the end got the version with the higher frame rate.
It looks like Xbox has a higher average FPS but clearly you can tell PS3 has sharper textures. I think I'm going to go with the PS3 version when I play it.
I just got the HD Collection on PS3 like last week, without realizing there was an X360-version (though, I didn't realize I was just going to get a cheap X360 for a small list of significant games that are better on it than on the PS3). But luckily it seems like the PS3-version, despite the framerate-dips, is of better quality in terms of clarity and all that. Usually it's the other way around, like 'Red Dead Redemption' for example is just a messy blur on the PS3 compared to the X360-version, probably because of trying to get it to play nice with the Cell processor. But here it seems like it's the other way around. - I mean, I'd believe it if the labels on the video were accidentally the wrong way around...
Red Dead Redemption a messy blur on PS3? If your face is 2 inches from the screen, yes. Nobody plays like that though so it isn't really noticeable unless you're looking for it. If you sit back and play the game normally then it's ok.
@@ashleythomas4112 Not true; What I've said is true if you simply look at it. - The resolution is lowered to cope with the performance issues of the PS3. Plus there are more issues like lower resolution textures, shadows, less anti-aliasing. - It is a FACTUAL mess. Just look it up. You don't have to sit "2 inches from the screen" at all, don't be cynical.
@@michaelmonstar4276 Yeah, I played Redemption 1 on PS3 again last year and I know the resolution was higher on 360, the resolution is lower on PS3 to help the games performance. I'm pretty sure this was the case with GTA 4 as well. When I was a few feet from the screen and the game was in motion it was running ok, vistas and the environments looked very nice and the game looked good enough. It was only when I got quite close to the screen that I could very clearly notice blurriness in the environment and lower quality textures and shadows. The game doesn't run as well or look as good as the 360 version, that is a fact. Is it a mess? No, the game runs ok and is certainly playable enough. Calling it a mess is being cynical, it's factually the lesser version, not factually a mess.
@@michaelmonstar4276 Talking about Red Dead Redemption I think you are right. It looks wonderful on my ps3, but from what I saw on UA-cam Is better on Xbox 360. Higher resolution, more vibrant colors and a more steady frame rate. Talking about Mgs3 HD, there aren't the damn analog inputs on Xbox 360. I think this is a bonus, because is very annoying to play without an original ps3 controller, while you can play the Xbox version with any controller
@@SyamDaRos-EndoManno And even if you have an original ps3 controller, it's not like the ps2 controller. Aiming and then releasing without shooting is harder. Forget about aiming with an automatic weapon, because now the weigh of an ant is enough to pull the trigger. It's way easier on Xbox since you can draw and lower your weapon simply by pressing the left joystick.
Anyone know if the ps3 version has as bad compressed audio during cutscenes like the 360 version does? Mgs3 in particular, during cutscenes, sounds like its recorded at 64kbps. You don't notice it on headphones. But a powerful audio system, oh yeah. The 5.1 is nice though. The ps2 version was never like that.
If they just popped this on the PC, there wouldn't be such a disparity of which would look, and play, the best. Of course, it would have it's limitations like locked 30 fps, nonstop bugs, and always online DRM. Such is the world we live in.
But it would still be there initially. I'm glad that Dead Rising 3 had a workaround for it's locked 30 fps that was offered right from Capcom or whatever.
Dr. Steve Brule Naaaahhhhh PC has no analog buttons, a must for this game: lean (L2,R2), aim without shoot and low the gun (slowly release square), walk stealthily (DPAD pressure)
+ZedHqX4 All those would work just fine on PC, however I have no idea what you mean with "Aim without shooting and lower the gun" I'm guessing its something to do with the PS2 controllers pressure sensors.
Some have pointed out before; the framedrops are for cinematics, to dramatize certain things (such as the fire scene). The port of MGS2 for pc has built in functions to imitate the same manner the PS2 did for cinematics (frame dropping). So in some regard I think the PS3 port is actually better because it stays true to the game's original framerate.
HAHA it's not "more dramatic", it's because the console can't handle with that animations. C'mon, if that could be possible true, why there's no a fucking frame drop in MGSV in PS4/XO?? MGSV is always at 60fps, ALWAYS, even in cutscenes.
![Evolution of Metal Gear Games [1987-2024]](/img/n.gif)
When I was using PS2 I didn't even know what fps drops were
TheBarlettan my thoughts exactly... i miss the old times when we just cared about playing the game and enjoying it.
Raindrop511 What about when the games don't run properly and are impossible to enjoy?
*****
Maybe you just played unity on an xbox one xD
Lol i never even knew about frame rate back in the day. Now, i could feel the frame drops like its playing a slideshow.
+TheBarlettan at that time fps drops were considered as cinematic scenes
impressive how the ps2 could actually deliver this game. thumbs up....never forgotten
should have showed the ps2 swamp map. literally 5 fps
True Pride worst part is Playing MGS2 before this and expecting it to be 60fps
3rd Way you're slow and choppy. I bet you can't even notice when shown. You wouldn't even know when you haven't seen that video.
I can't notice any drops from 30 fps to 15 on a CRT TV but on an HD TV it looks so horrible
That 20 fps when naked snake lands makes it more great to look
damn 14 FPS of console raw power
The PS2 is realy old but very god for his age.
+edwin kock Did you really Thinks PS2 is closer to PS3?
That was momentary, if you've ever played the game on PS2 it's a surprisingly smooth experience apart for, at times, a few seconds of lag
This game was pushing the hardware to the absolute limit to a point that the console just can't do anymore, just like Shadow of the colossus and the cpu pushing game: god of war 2.
@@od13166 nope. Ps2 was (at least on paper) 9 or 10 times less powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360. But this and god of war 2 looked like early ps3 games.
I loved this game so much on PS2 that I never realized that it ran at so low fps.
It's strange that the PS3 can't keep a steady framerate.
It's because of the cell processor Sony used for the PS3
@John both have 512 mb of ram. The difference was due to hardware design. The ps3 shares the ram and vram splitted in two bipartitions where as the 360 has one single ram for all functions.
watchmejumpstart ps3 processor is better but harder to develop for
@@carinet2795 wasn't it Power PC too? If I'm not mistaken the ps3 hhas some co-cpus wich were the hard part
@@PCuser0137 yeah the cell is powerpc
Even the cutscenes in the ps2 version look gorgeous
Porque son pregrabadas pero con baja calidad
@@Javierdepp The cutscenes on ps2 are real time not pre rendered. It was already the case for mgs 1 and 2.
@@femto8402 algunas sinematicas son pregrabadas algunas
@@Javierdepp las que serían pregrabada son las que mostraban escena con personas reales y de períodos, pero la gran memoria son del motor del juego en tiempo real y por eso de los bajones de fps
@@Rayzer10X ok
Frame rate drops in cutscenes really don't matter, its part of the reason why it was inconsistent on ps2. Should shown gameplay instead.
+Jman Rising It's just as bad in gameplay.
XDLugia True.Mgs2 ran better. It still would of been far more helpful to show gameplay performance instead of just cutscenes though.
Take into account that while the framerates waver, they waver to suit the situation. Even though the 360 remains consistent, it feels more animated and it just doesn't feel right to me
The ps3's framerate by no means makes it bad, but the 360 has great computing power.
PS2 version will also run in Progressive Scan. It's not enabled in the menu, but you can enable it with either the PS2 Free MCBoot or HDTVX Boot Disk. Game looks even better this way.
Does it drop more frames in this mode?
@@damienlobb85 yes
I actually really like the way the PS2 version looks. PS3 is close but the PS2 has depth of field, i think some kind of haze and the rain during the bridge cutscene.
Surprisingly, X360 works much better than PS3. I guess it would be because of the architecture of PS3?
Bruce Wayne I think I remember hearing in a commentary over Arkham City that framerate issues are more prevelant in PS3 ports than 360's because since Xbox is a Microsoft product, its specs were easier to port from PC's.
@@Nerom99 I may be a _tad_ bit late, but the X360's architecture is very different from a PC's. Not just the specs, but how they're utilized.
But the ps3 version has more distance of drawing than 360
4:37 it looks better in ps3
The controller, jack, the controller is best for ps3
The good old PS2 will never be beaten, I still play mine today and enjoy every minute of it.
You prefer playing in sub-30 FPS/480p to playing in 40-60 FPS and 720p? Do you even hear what you are saying?
Yeah no thanks
The HD version is kind of a botch job. The Theme song is out of sync, the entire background disappears in a cutscene etc.
@mark3t029What? The HD collection does have subsistence, and substance for mgs2. Wish people wouldnt talk about things they know nothing about.
although HD gave the game its clean look, i am a sucker for vintage (gc and n64 are my home consoles) so the anti aliasing and frame drops give it an aged touch which i will always like.
That ps2 tho...ps2master race
The slight ‘Haze’ over the screen the PS2 version has is super nice
Knowing that Kojima originally planned to release Snake Eater for the PS3 back in the day, the drops in the cutscenes as seen in the HD Collection port might've been identical if the game was originally built for that system. Sure, most developers had a hard time developing for the PS3 early in the system's life, but if the game maintained the polygon count in all assets it might've performed just like the HD Collection counterpart and even maintaining a full HD resolution.
LOL. You're kidding right? Kojima started story writing and development for this game in late 2001. This game released in 2004. Developers didn't even get wind of the PS3 until very late 2003 to early 2004. This game was definitely meant to be a PS2 game. It's just waaay to ambitious for a PS2 title just as most of the games released 2004 and afterward were.
Chrisjb1983 No OP's right. Kojima did plan for this to be on PS3 but couldn't do it as the ps3 was still far off from launch. It was supposed to be that each installment released on the next generation console (MGS1 on PS1, MGS2 on PS2 etc.) But he settled for the PS2.
Gixxer Fixxer Although I would of loved it very much so, highly doubtful. MGS3 was a technical marvel on the PS2 (fact it could even run on the system) and wouldn't have veered much better as a launch title on the PS3 versus what we eventually got with the HD remaster. Still wouldn't of been on par with what we got with MGS 4 if MGS 3 was in fact a launch title.
@@Chrisjb1983 see the wikipedia page for mgs3
Tuvo problemas de omtimisasiin por su baja potencia un caso rise of te tobm Raider que no salió y su sea que te enseño sus especificaciones
Still waiting for the PC port. Honestly, since all creative people at Konami have now left, the best thing they can do is just re-release stuff.
u can do it by emulation
@@bangasou12 it sucks you need 16gb ram and a beast cpu
Lol this game doesn't even need a texture update. Just up the resolution and it still looks decent if you ask me.
+TheKrustaceox One of the ps2 games with best graphics.
+TheKrustaceox in 2015 i still have the ps2 plugged in and i still play it with metal gear
+metal fox 913 ITA cant find this game anymore aghhhh!!
bad story
+TheBarlettan Games always look better further down a consoles life cycle. Don't understand why. I guess poor console hardware is hard to optimize for and companies don't push the boundries until years later.
Look at Resident Evil 1(1995) vs. Parasite Eve 2(2000) in the Playstation 1 life.
Look at Resident Evil:Code Veronica (2001) vs. Resident Evil 4 (2005) in the Playstation 2 life.
Look at Resistance:FOM (2006) vs. MGS 5:PP (2015) in the Playstation 3 life.
MGS 4 was pretty sexy for the Ps3 too and that was released in 2008, but that game was really pushing the threshold of game producers at the time. Not to mention, that game had been in development to 4 years and was supposed to be a launch title for the Ps3.
I would even take a look at the 360 side of things and compare Gears of War 1 (2006) to Gears of War 3 (2011). Much more polished game.
It would seem the PS3 version dips a bit lower sometimes. I assume it's because developers sometimes had trouble with the PS3's strange processor.
Falso
Seems more so because the PS3 version seems to have slightly higher res textures
@@charlieharrington9555 Not at all. Both ps3 and 360 are identical, for some reasons the ps3 versions seems more contrasted on this video, that's why it seems more "detailed"
@@femto8402 ah, I see, thanks
@@femto8402 The xbox360 had more ram than the PS3 and was easier to program on it, the vast majority of games run better on 360 than on PS3
PS2: when players just wanted to play nice games, and some fps drops didn't matters. I miss these times
I know right? When I was a kid it didn't even bug me, it still doesn't on consoles... But you should fully expect 40fps+ minimum on you pc
Fun thing is that graphic wars were happening since NES. So missing this times argument is shit.
Slippy Games are art... I think you're projecting
If you're playing CoD that's not art...
Soldado Calango I'm sorry buddy but this is the 21st century, even back then these framerate drops were considered pretty bad.
Soldado Calango To be fair, many of us X1, PS4 gamers are of the same mindset. Just make good to great games that look decent play decent and I am good, don't really care about frame dips, resolution.
It was kinda stupid that the PS3 version couldn't be upscale to 1080p.
@@jiyunsun wrong
The PS3 came out in 2006, what did you expect?
Terricole Media That game was two years pld so nah your argument sucs
Vram issues. That's why couldn't even upscale or render something like Sonic Adventure 2 (A Dreamcast game) at 1080p. The same applies to the 360.
@@jiyunsun sorry this is not a place for PC 120 FPS players.
This is proof that better hardware doesn't mean better versions of games. Because of the weird architecture of the PS3, it's hard to make games for it. This is obviously a good port, but if you have a publisher who lazily ports games, they just emulate it, losing a lot of frames.
Probably helps that MGS3 was originally meant to be a PS3 game.
You should’ve put a gameplay segment destroying the helicopter before reaching to Ocelot 1st boss battle. When the helicopter explodes frame rate drops to 5fps even on PS3.
Oh, how I love this game.
2:05 GOD that PS2 frame drop!
Even Ps3 and Xbox 360 drop hard with that fire.
Best looking fire on the PS2, though.
What a impressive game for PS2. The HD version are also an improvement over the original game
Ps2 master race.
You prefer playing in sub-30 FPS/480p to playing in 40-60 FPS and 720p? Do you even hear what you are saying?
@@adriannn3720 Firstly it was sarcasm and secondly you're replying to a comment which is 7 years old.
@@MhmedProductionz How was i supposed to know? Everyone here praises the PS2 over PS3 for no reason
Also, what's wrong with replying to a comment 7 years old?
@@MhmedProductionz brother why the fuck did you come back after 2014 just to respond to this guy
WEAK!
2:12 where is the depth of field on the PS3 and 360 versions?
🤷♂
The depth of field effect seems to have been removed. Or at least significantly reduced to the point where it's almost imperceptible.
Yep, that is sad! Most Remasters get rid of Post-FX the original games had, for some reason.
@@NaldinhoGX Most sources I managed to find suggest that it's a consequence of the higher resolution the game is running in. Apparently, the same thing happens if you increase the resolution of the original game in an emulator. Could be an oversight on the Bluepoint's part, but I think it was probably just outside of the scope of their project.
Makes sense, actually. The same thing is true for PC games, I've noticed, such as GTAV - when you play it at 4K, the same thing happens. They probably just didn't tune it to adjust the effect to the new resolution. Shadow of the Colossus Remaster (from Bluepoint, too) is also missing a lot of Depth of Field effects. I've also read people saying it could be because of how these effects were programmed for the PlayStation 2 hardware (GPU, most specifically), making them difficult to 'translate' for other systems.@@vesselinkrastev
the ps2 was a beasty machine for its time
***** oh but it was. Unsurpassed library of games. That's all that matters for a game console.
The original Xbox was beast for its time.
***** He's not wrong. The Xbox blew the PS2 out of the water in terms of power. The only reason the PS2 survived so long was because nobody could afford a PS3 until years into its cycle.
Nikolai Azerbaijan The only reason it survived?
If you read the PS2 had an unsurpassed number of games even after the PS3 came out. Its like you literally didn't exist between 2002-2006. The Xbox was a powerhouse but that didn't mean anything if it had nothing special to show for it like maybe a couple big exclusives.
Nikolai Azerbaijan PS2 lasted so long because of its library, but the Xbox was a beast due to its hardware. The PS2 wasn't very powerful at all, though.
Wow... on ps2 there were 15 fps drops??? I had no idea, back then i was fully concentrated on story and gameplay. Nowadays i would probably call it unplayable. This is so far one of my favourite games. So much feelings...
I will never forget playing this game at 10 fps on my 2DS.
The low framerate from the PS2 version had a cinematic charm to it.
0:51 ps3 a lot better textures for example ;D i was thinking why sometimes fps is dropping lower than 360 ;D
Es solo el brillo q está aumentado un poco en 360
You would think that the PS3 would have a better time running the game
In all honesty, the ps3 really does have more selective framerates. While the 360 stays closer to 60, the ps3 wavers to more accurately depict the scene. However, it can also be chalked up to the lack of computing power, although the ps3 has a better GPU
The 360 actually has a better and more modern GPU than the PS3, it's just that PS3 is much more difficult to develop for because the architecture it uses is quite uncommon/unique.
Guys these are cutscenes both consoles have a better time running the game during gameplay
What i meant was that because the games were all PS2 and PSP games at first that I would think that the PS3 would have the best version of the games but by this video, the 360 keeps it up at a good 60 fps
Louis Tusset I dont know why people are bitching about framerate but anyway if you don't know the frames only drops during cutscenes but during gameplay the frames are solid 60fps but dont blame kojima
because Bluepoint games ported this game not him
The ps2 makes it look good because of that low framerate, it makes it look more like its a stop motion like animation
It's funny because all the animations were done in 30.
It pisses me off, that the x360 and ps3 are missing the DOF of the ps2 version.... That's a big oversight.
Focus effect on ps2 owns both ps3/360. The only differences are the fps and AA.
PS2 version had the best shader effects. For some reason, hd collections never had that shiny, "yellowish" shader effect which I really liked back in PS2. It was stunning for its time. Any reason for not including that shader?
The PS2 has no shaders. What yellowish shader effect are you referring to? Some PS2 games sort of simulated a shader or HDR effect but the PS3 and 360 GPUs were made to support tons of shaders and true HDR. Sometimes PS2 games might have oversatured the image to cover things up. Blinded by the light!
Idk what it is. Pcsx2 hardware mode can't show it but you can easily see the yellowish effect in the software mode. Hardware mode is just like PS3 one. Try it out sometime.
GTA San Andreas had one
Hardware mode is nothing like PS3. Cut the bullshit, you obviously never played HD collection or never ran this game in PCSX2 yourself, otherwise you'd know how different renders are. PCSX2 in DX11 HW kills all the post process effects, which are perfectly present in HD Collection on both X360 and PS3. BTW, It is now possible with OpenGL and a few blending tweaks to run MGS3 with all the post process effects on at a pretty high resolution, with widescreen hack enabled it almost makes the game excatly like HD Collection, but poor performance on sub 4Ghz CPUs and low resolution interface still break the xperience.
P.S. All the tints and shader are there in PS3, check your old TV to which you connected your PS2, maybe that created something you don't see(because you shouldn't) in HD Collection for whatever reason.
it RECENTLY is able to show the post effects, you can check it out in my channel.
I don't care if the PS2 is the worst of all of them by a long run, the system has over 3000 freaking games! Shitty or not that is really impressive
Even with 30 fps, the PS2 version still look like 60 fps sometimes in the game. This is a crazy thing
Because the game is slow paced, but you can definitely feel the 30 fps in game. Still impressive for the ps2
Sadly I could never emulate very well this game in PC and I don't know why, in some parts the game run with 30 fps but in others the fps drop to 12 and 8 and the sound was horrible when that happened. I tested it in two different PCs but nothing changed........I could never play this wonderful game because of that problem and it frustrated me a lot.
+Jahman
Type in "automated PCSX2 builds" in the search bar. These are usually "up-to-date" daily revisions of the PCSX2 emulator. These newer versions have OpenGL capabilities which allow for a more accurate render of MGS3. Also, in some cases, higher framerate as well. Another thing, while software mode makes the game look shit and slow, there is a work-around. At least with the "slow" aspect of the render type. If you have a four core CPU, change rendering threads (in the video section) to three, or if your CPU is better than most, to four. The game should attain a stable sixty frames per second, excluding the occasional frame drop. In that case, experiment with the speed hacks (which can sometimes help).
kind of miss not knowing about graphics or frame rate 20fps seemed so normal.
yeah... i almost never felt a diference while playing in my old ps2
frame pacing on consoles has always been different anyway, they do get lower fps sometimes, but the way the frame renders makes it hard to notice slowdowns or stutters, even so, some new console games have stutter and fps drops and frame pacing issues PC-style. I am a PC gamer, but the way frames are rendered on some console games is brilliant.
Seriously, the sharp textures are more than making up for the little frame rate drop on the ps3.
not really id rather the gameplay be smoother than the game be prettier, but thats just my opinion
it looks the same lol
xbox360 the monster
xbox 360 run its on 624p, ps3 on 720p, but the xbox 360 version is more fucking stable
Carlos38841 yeah
Carlos38841 wtf there's nothing on the article that says that the 360 version runs at 600p
stop lying
fucking fanboys
Just take a fucking hdmi recorder, that thing gave you the native resolution of the source (Xbox 360 runs in less resolution, but runs smoother and didn't have framedrops than the ps3 version, when its runner in a little bit higher resolution 720p but poorly optimizated). and 600p and 624p are diferent resolutions: 600p it's a 16:9 aspect ratio resolution, meanwhile 624p it's a 16:10 aspect ratio resolution, pretty common on the ported games from 6th generation to 7th generation, because is more efficiently take the image without lose of information (choping out the image), or unwanted effects (like ghostly or poping objects, because this games are made for run on 4:3 resolutions),
Carlos38841 Nope the game runs in 720P on Xbox. And you can't get the games resolution from metadata as you suggest, because the Xbox scales any native resolution to either 720 or 1080.
What what?! 7th gen had 60fps?!
Yes. Any console can have 60fps. The GameCube had many 60 fps games.
+Matrix9056 if what you're saying is true looks like I've slightly misjudged consoles.
+EPICx BE4STM0DE yep. It's just some games use so much resources they end up like this. Mgs 3 looks great but runs badly on ps2. Since the 360 is capable of holding stronger games, mgs 3 runs beautifully on it. If you want me to explain more I can. Sorry I rushed this a bit.
The ORIGINAL Super Mario Bros. ran at a stable 60FPS.
And that was from 1985. All F-Zero games, from the SNES to F-Zero GX, ran at 60FPS. There's a video on UA-cam about GX's framerate with a similar way of measuring it as this video did, and even at 480p F-Zero GX didn't drop a frame below 60FPS.
lmao. even xbox (which was not MGS's exclusive console) has support constant 60fps
Holy crap PS2!? They tried to do this game ON PS2!? No wonder it drops so badly. I dread to think how good the gameplay looks outside of cutscenes.
El juego salió originalmente en PS2
i dont get why Snake hesitated cause he had a tranquilizer gun during that scene. All he would have done was put her to sleep.
He didnt have to worry about hurting her.
5:05
"not yet found an emo"
lol
I've got the game on PS3 and I've noticed some crazy fps drops plus some graphical errors most noticed during the cutscenes of snake escaping in the WIG, the lake was all messed up
Back in the day, we didn't even give a shit about this. That's why we have so many good memories about games back then.
it seems that PS3 had better graphics but also less steady frame rates. I think it's kinda the same logic as playing on Ultra on a PC for a game that CAN run 60fps but will drop at times while also having a game that plays on high/medium but stays at a steady 60fps. either way both consoles had their ups and downs. Yes I am commenting on a video from 8 years ago but that's cuz this game cannot be forgotten lmao
im glad this gem and mgs2 were ported to the 7th gen consoles and got the framerate it deserves
The Xbox xenos had 10mb of embedded ram, which gave it a massive bandwidth. PS3 rsx on the other hand didn't have that, it only had about 25gb to its vram., that's why the ps3 bogs down when there are more alpha effects on screen (smoke, fog, fire etc).
Insane how much better the Xbox OG and the 360 were compared to their counterparts. Such a consistently good console
Yeah, it's actually laughable how bad the PS3 cell architecture really was. Dropping frames all the way down to 24 fps in a previous gen game. Pathetic
@@Johnnybomb1 cpu and ram is better on PS3 but the GPU is lill weak but if you overclock it would perform way better than xbox
This Game was originally gonna be made on next gen consoles (PS3), But due to time restrictions, they drawed back to the PlayStation 2
Surprising Mr. Krabs' daughter Pearl voiced by The Boss.
Did the game run at 1080p on the newer consoles? If that was the case, I can't complain, since it would still be 4x the original frame rate (from the 360) at 6 times the original resolution, and we can't demand perfect optimization from a port. However, If it was just 720p, it's lame.
Ps2 classic console they just pushed it to it's limits for 13 years. Crazy
What i like from that generations was that the subtitles were readable!
Ps2 looks really good though
Though I am PlayStation fan I must say Xbox here performs the best I have played this game on ps2 didn't care about fps they were fine enough
I'm surprised how many effects were omitted from the PS3 version.
Does Metal Gear 3 PS3 graphics look as good as Metal Gear 4 PS3? I don't see much difference between PS2 and PS3
+Andre They are pretty much the same but in HD
Holy Shit the ps2 version didn't feel that bad
A few years late here ey?
nice vid guys, but what about 3ds and psvita?
For the framerate X360 disk on Xbox one s is better than PS3, but MGS2/3 are barely unplayable. Only PS2/PS3 have analog buttons
Is it just me or does the texture-filtering on PS3 really stand out? Or is this just an issue with the capture card DF used for this video?
You really need to change where that df emblem goes because it's right over the top of the far right frame and makes it hard to see
I play this game for first time on 3DS, when i saw the PS3 gsmeplay at 60 fps it was so rare for me. Anyway i love this game even on 30 fps or less.
Why didn't you play the game? Why did you show only cut cene?
should i buy the HD collection or emulate the games on my PC?
+mrjacob0101 definitely buy the HD collection. I would say playing Peace Walker on the HD collection is way better than emulating the PSP version. Metal Gear Solid 3 has some textures you couldn't see (such as Snakes mask in the beginning) unless you were playing the HD version. The HD version also supports full screen and always runs above 30 fps, which is really good because you don't have giant black blocks blocking half the screen during cutscenes.
+mrjacob0101 definitely buy the HD collection. I would say playing Peace Walker on the HD collection is way better than emulating the PSP version. Metal Gear Solid 3 has some textures you couldn't see (such as Snakes mask in the beginning) unless you were playing the HD version. The HD version also supports full screen and always runs above 30 fps, which is really good because you don't have giant black blocks blocking half the screen during cutscenes.
if i wont find it do you know a psp emulator?
+mrjacob0101 PPSSPP PSP Emulator & PCSX2 PS2 Emulator
i know pcsx2 i cant play snake eater cause of the camera angle! is subsence is better?
Don't get me wrong, I love this game. The story and the characters were really awesome but the gameplay and controls were god awful and made this game so much harder than it had to be. It's like Kojima was forcing you to constantly sneak and never shoot anyone because the gun controls were so terrible. I'm glad they changed this in MGS4 and made it much more intuitive.
The concept of MGS is that men, no killing and sneaking.
umm isn't that the point of metal gear where you are barely supposed to shoot anyone unless you have to? That's called stealth man. Mgs4 controls were more for people who went loud and alerts a lot because the third person aim was better and you can move while aiming. mgs3 only allowed to stay in 1 position so you can aim at a person's head while they are not looking and eliminate them off. Guess you're not the stealth type. And it's been like this since mgs1.
Kadyn McCormack1007 both actually. The HD version never changed the controls for the PS2 version so it left it the way it is.
The 3DS version actually updated Snake Eater by A LOT where the controls would be like MGS4 and Peace Walker. The 3DS version added crouch walking, third person shoulder aim, auto aim, you can walk while aiming, being able to actually reload without unequip/equip the gun, and the circle pad pro which offers better camera control like MGS4 or if you don't have the circle pad pro then the camera movement would be like peace walker since you need the 4 buttons to move the camera. It added new textures to the game and it especially remade snake's look. It added better shading for the 3D mode to take affect really nicely. The only downside to the 3DS version is the crap resolution and it locks at 20 fps and it drops down a lot to like 10 fps or 5 fps whenever there is so much stuff on the screen like spamming smoke grenades, too many explosions or when you are fighting The Fury. The moment he sprays a lot of fire on the screen is when the frame rate goes really crap. Other than that, the game is really good on 3DS and it's great for people who like games on the go.
1:44 I swear that guy sounds like captain price from cod 4
We need the HD collection outside of Peacewalker to be backwards compatible so we can get more consistent 60fps. Still, ironically, the 360 has the most consistent output of all.
It is now backwards compatible
I know, I saw.
Ps 3 veryyyyyy muchhhh grapichsss
Xbox 360 veryyyyyy much fps
Ps 2 awesome
+Bintang Antaris PS2 = Neither
Bintang Antaris ps3 and xbox have same graphics in my opinion
capucapu loloco If you look closely, the textures on the 360 version are slightly blurrier than on the PS3. That could be because the 360 uses DVDs as opposed to the PS3, which used Blu-Ray, so there's less space for textures, which means the textures might be more compressed. It's not a huge difference, and I'd personally prefer to have the framerate dip a little less, so I'd spring for the Xbox 360 version. But, no, they're not quite the same.
Yes
WTF?? I saw the video in 4K, and the blurred textures are in the ps3 version. This because the texture filtering is better in x360 version.
So, better texture filtering, better fps... that means the 360 version is the best.
OK 360 definitely has better framerate and ps3 does look a little bit sharper when you pay attention but really I'm surprised that these issues even exist. It's a ps2 game! I guess I'm expecting too much from 360/ps3. As for the game, it's one of the best I've played no matter the system.
I don't give a damn that this game has a better frame rate on PS3/360. I've beaten the game like 10 times on PS2 and i enoyed every time. And i'll do it again if i could but my PS2 passed away like a year ago after almost 10 years of abuse from me and my brother. So many games played. So many memories :')
If u want to buy another one they are about 60 dollars on amazon.
+tikiman48 thing is. I don't live in the US. There's no Amazon here. btw sorry for the delay. Kept u waiting, ha! XD
:/ dude. Why didnt you show gameplay too
super stable 20 fps very nice
PlayStation 2: **9~20fps**
Us at the time: WHOA! THIS IS SO IMPRESSIVE!
Folks think that 6th gen consoles had 60fps games, when they don't talk about performance of these games:
-Shadow of colossus PS2
-Half life 2 OG Xbox
-GTAs PS2
-God of War PS2
-Halo CE OG Xbox
If anything there were PS2/OG Xbox games that had abysmal performance just like PS3/Xbox 360 games
How can all 3 Versions look so similar Graphics wise
Porque el original es de ps2 y las otras dos son versiones en HD con más resolución y fps
I still got my PS2 copies of MGS2 and MGS3. I got the HD versions on the Xbox 360. I could have got the PS3 version, in the end got the version with the higher frame rate.
It looks like Xbox has a higher average FPS but clearly you can tell PS3 has sharper textures. I think I'm going to go with the PS3 version when I play it.
I just got the HD Collection on PS3 like last week, without realizing there was an X360-version (though, I didn't realize I was just going to get a cheap X360 for a small list of significant games that are better on it than on the PS3). But luckily it seems like the PS3-version, despite the framerate-dips, is of better quality in terms of clarity and all that. Usually it's the other way around, like 'Red Dead Redemption' for example is just a messy blur on the PS3 compared to the X360-version, probably because of trying to get it to play nice with the Cell processor. But here it seems like it's the other way around. - I mean, I'd believe it if the labels on the video were accidentally the wrong way around...
Red Dead Redemption a messy blur on PS3? If your face is 2 inches from the screen, yes. Nobody plays like that though so it isn't really noticeable unless you're looking for it. If you sit back and play the game normally then it's ok.
@@ashleythomas4112 Not true; What I've said is true if you simply look at it. - The resolution is lowered to cope with the performance issues of the PS3. Plus there are more issues like lower resolution textures, shadows, less anti-aliasing. - It is a FACTUAL mess. Just look it up. You don't have to sit "2 inches from the screen" at all, don't be cynical.
@@michaelmonstar4276 Yeah, I played Redemption 1 on PS3 again last year and I know the resolution was higher on 360, the resolution is lower on PS3 to help the games performance. I'm pretty sure this was the case with GTA 4 as well. When I was a few feet from the screen and the game was in motion it was running ok, vistas and the environments looked very nice and the game looked good enough. It was only when I got quite close to the screen that I could very clearly notice blurriness in the environment and lower quality textures and shadows.
The game doesn't run as well or look as good as the 360 version, that is a fact. Is it a mess? No, the game runs ok and is certainly playable enough. Calling it a mess is being cynical, it's factually the lesser version, not factually a mess.
@@michaelmonstar4276 Talking about Red Dead Redemption I think you are right. It looks wonderful on my ps3, but from what I saw on UA-cam Is better on Xbox 360. Higher resolution, more vibrant colors and a more steady frame rate.
Talking about Mgs3 HD, there aren't the damn analog inputs on Xbox 360. I think this is a bonus, because is very annoying to play without an original ps3 controller, while you can play the Xbox version with any controller
@@SyamDaRos-EndoManno And even if you have an original ps3 controller, it's not like the ps2 controller. Aiming and then releasing without shooting is harder. Forget about aiming with an automatic weapon, because now the weigh of an ant is enough to pull the trigger. It's way easier on Xbox since you can draw and lower your weapon simply by pressing the left joystick.
Great comparison :)
Xbox 360 perfect console for retro games
Still hope we get a PC port of it.
that fire is hard to handle ..
Xbox 360 wins
It would be awesome to compare it to the 3ds version :)))
Anyone know if the ps3 version has as bad compressed audio during cutscenes like the 360 version does? Mgs3 in particular, during cutscenes, sounds like its recorded at 64kbps. You don't notice it on headphones. But a powerful audio system, oh yeah. The 5.1 is nice though. The ps2 version was never like that.
MGS 3 PS2 CRT TV vs MGS3 X360/PS3 LED Screen - version on PS2 looks better.
Yes which CRT Sony Trinitron?
If they just popped this on the PC, there wouldn't be such a disparity of which would look, and play, the best.
Of course, it would have it's limitations like locked 30 fps, nonstop bugs, and always online DRM. Such is the world we live in.
> implying that it's impossible to find ways around those things
But it would still be there initially.
I'm glad that Dead Rising 3 had a workaround for it's locked 30 fps that was offered right from Capcom or whatever.
Dr. Steve Brule Naaaahhhhh PC has no analog buttons, a must for this game: lean (L2,R2), aim without shoot and low the gun (slowly release square), walk stealthily (DPAD pressure)
+ZedHqX4 All those would work just fine on PC, however I have no idea what you mean with "Aim without shooting and lower the gun" I'm guessing its something to do with the PS2 controllers pressure sensors.
This game is so far ahead of its time that the PS2 can barely run it and the X360/PS3 can barely maintain 60fps on it.
It may not have constant 60p, but the PS3 quality is the best.
Some have pointed out before; the framedrops are for cinematics, to dramatize certain things (such as the fire scene). The port of MGS2 for pc has built in functions to imitate the same manner the PS2 did for cinematics (frame dropping). So in some regard I think the PS3 port is actually better because it stays true to the game's original framerate.
HAHA it's not "more dramatic", it's because the console can't handle with that animations. C'mon, if that could be possible true, why there's no a fucking frame drop in MGSV in PS4/XO?? MGSV is always at 60fps, ALWAYS, even in cutscenes.
most of movies in 2004 -2007 weren't 60 , sometimes 20fps on Ps2 had great look like in movies..
such a shame mgs5 is not as groundbreaking or impressive as the previous titles when compared to other games out there.