| Zekkyou said: While i agree that MGS5 and XCX don't make for a perfect comparison, the bolded isn't entirely relevant. How difficult an open world game is to render has little to do with its actual size, but with the size of its various LOD fields and the quality of what's in them. In something like XCX, and even MGS5, everything past a certain distance is being rendered with very low-quality assets (and if it's far enough away often not rendered at all). If an open world game is properly optimized, the majority of its render budget should be focused on the player's local environment. MGS5 isn't 60fps because it has a segmented world, in-fact i expect that was more of a design decision than a technical one. It's 60fps because of its general focus, and the quality of what's being rendered locally around the player. MGS5 is a pretty nice looking game, but ultimately on a technical level it's mostly just a PS3/360 game that's been polished up (far be it well polished). |
It has plenty to do with it in regards to the quality of the final products output you must have ignored or not read the whole debate as the point is about performance and quality. MGSV would not run at 60fps if it wasn't segmented as well as have as much going on as other mentioned games and it would certainly have to make compromises to do that and be seamless like the other mentioned games.
Ofcourse MGS is focused on what's locally that's the whole point, even when something is rendered in low quality at a distance it is still taking up resources, in MGSV's case it loads one segmented area and makes it run at 60fps with detail and less going on then the other games, that's how it focuses on the player locally, you wouldn't get the same result if the game wasn't segmented. We can also factor in that in cases like XCX's and Just Cause that rendering also extends horizontally further then most games.
