Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance PC vs Xbox 360 Screenshots Comparison

By -

Now that Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance PC version is officially out, it is time to see how well it compares to the Xbox 360 version of the game. Considering the fact that the original game is 720p and 60 fps already on consoles, does the PC version offer any substantial upgrade besides a resolution boost?

Despite having its fair share of issues including a resolution limit to 1080p, along with a launch bug that resulted in online DRM, the PC port of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is well made and optimized to run on a wide variety of PC hardware. In terms of graphics, it might not offer such advanced customizations as available in other PC games but still it is not a bad port per se.

In the graphics options of the game, we can set the AA, AF along with the quality of shadows. The most obvious improvement here is the option to determine how many cuts we can make through our blade and how long they are visible. On consoles, the cuts disappear the within a second but on PC, they can be visible longer(Depending on settings). Both of these options can be set to either low to high and are perhaps the most obvious improvement beside the resolution.

MGR-Comparison-(1) MGR-Comparison-(2)

Note: Click on each image to view in full screen.

 

What do you think about this comparison? Let us know in the comments below.

Khurram Imtiaz

A Geek and Gamer, who loves JRPGs and VITA. Follow him on Twitter and Google+

  • blaa

    PC masterrace

  • Steve Brain

    It’s a console port.. Of course it looks identical. Pointless thread.

  • Dan Rakich

    I like how there only seem to be xbox360 screenshots GREAT comparing technique guys

  • PatcherStation

    I wouldn’t say the difference is massive. The Xbox 360 still holds up very well for an 8 year old console, going on 9 years old this year. But Konami never pushes the boat out when it comes to graphics anyway.

    • aeris bueller

      Not at all. This game doesn’t push the pc. It’d be like playing Super Mario World for n64 on the xbox360 with the same old textures and ‘models’, then comparing them and because they looked exactly the same saying n64 holds up well to 360. If the game had been written to take advantage of PC graphics there’d actually be a point in comparing

  • raruna

    Wish they’d given us better textures overall, but good enough if you haven’t played the game yet.

  • Dakan45

    not much point the game looks the same, they didnt improve the graphics.

    • http://www.gearnuke.com/ Khurram Imtiaz

      That’s true. Although AA and AF eliminate the jaggies. Shadows are also rendered at higher resolution. But the game is still DirectX 9 so there isn’t much of a visible improvement.

      • Dakan45

        24gb game, 21gb of cutscenes….why not improve textures and shove ambient occlusion?

        • Cobac Razvan

          Because they don’t need to bump up the graphics. Simple as that. They had one great goal and that was to just port the game over to PC. Which they did a fantastic job, the game is greatly optimized and runs well. At least we have AA and AF, better shadows and resolutions above 720p.
          With a budget PC I get above 30 FPS at 1080p. Job well done I’d say.
          They can’t just re-write engine/game code to make a whole remake just for PC. They want a proper quick port to squeeze some more money on the PC platform.

          • Dakan45

            “With a budget PC I get above 30 FPS at 1080p.’

            Lolz the game runs 60 fps on consoles. IT should run 60 fps easilly on a budget pc.

            No talk about re writting anything, the textures they have are there in their pcs, they hyst used the downscaled them to run with 60 fps on cosnoles.

            “better shadows”

            sadly not, they are the same

            “hey want a proper quick port to squeeze some more money on the PC platform.”

            quick? this “pc version is in development since FOREVER also they said they like the idea of pc gaming and want to make it important in japan too.

          • aeris bueller

            “they did a fantastic job”
            is about the opposite of
            “They want a proper quick port to squeeze some more money on the PC platform”
            This is a crappy port, but yes, it is a port.

  • Abdulistan

    Damn, cars are black on PC! Let’s compare 1024×576 pictures!

  • Matt

    D3D9 with 7.3 FPS… lul.

  • NotGood

    I love graphical comparison with ridiculous image size…

    • http://www.gearnuke.com/ Khurram Imtiaz

      You can click on the images to view them in full size. There is no ridiculous image size here.

      • BuckStud

        Yes, NotGood is correct. The images are all in 720p (including the one above), yet the article keeps referencing the PC version as 1080p. If you take a 1080p pic and reduce it to 720p, you’re going to lose some detail.

Follow us!

If you like our site please help and click on any of these buttons!

×