arzh-CNenfrdejakoplptesuk
Search find 4120  disqus socia  tg2 f2 lin2 in2 X icon 3 y2  p2 tik steam2

METAL GEAR SOLID Δ: SNAKE EATER - review and comparison of graphic settings

Author Betailas, . Published in Action/FPS/TPS

Go to comments

The Metal Gear franchise has always held a special place in the history of the gaming industry. Its depth of story, direction, and technical solutions made it a benchmark for an entire generation of gamers. Now the series returns in a new format: METAL GEAR SOLID D: SNAKE EATER — a full-fledged remake of the cult third part, created on the engine Unreal Engine 5What we have before us is not just an updated classic, but an attempt to transfer the iconic game into modern realities, while preserving the original spirit and atmosphere.

The remake fits into modern trends: the developers are betting on photorealistic graphics, implementing advanced lighting and upscaling technologies, and completely reworked the environment and characters so that the project looks like current AAA releases. At the same time, special attention is paid to preserving the cinematic quality and artistic style of the original.

Unfortunately, this time the game has a rather limited list of graphic settings, which is not usual for games on the Unreal Engine. All parameters have 4 levels: Ultra, High, Those settings that were not included in the review either did not give a visible effect, or the changes are noticeable only in dynamics, which is difficult to record. The maximum fps in the game on the above-described configuration was 60 fps, since the game has a frame lock by default.

border
First on the list are Smoothing и Upscalers. The game has a base for the UE engine TSR, DLSS и FSR, XeSS, apparently, was decided not to add. First, let's compare the native, although FSR does not have it and the presets start with Quality.

Native

DLSSDLAA:

  • Image quality: High definition and detail, especially on brick wall textures and metal objects. DLAA effectively smooths edges, maintaining sharpness without blurring.
  • Features: Excellent detailing (eg rust on barrels), but slight stress may be noticeable GPU due to AI calculations.

TSR Native:

  • Image quality: Good detail, but slightly less sharp than DLAA, especially on distant objects. Edge smoothing is moderate.
  • Features: Natural image with balanced quality, suitable for stable rendering.

FSR Quality:

  • Image quality: Slightly blurrier image compared to DLAA and TSR. Object edges (like barrels and cylinders) have noticeable artifacts.
  • Features: Less aggressive anti-aliasing, which is noticeable on textures and small elements such as leaves on the ground.

Overall, DLAA leads in clarity and anti-aliasing, followed by TSR Native, with FSR Quality trailing slightly behind.

Now let's look at quality modes for upscalers.

Quality

DLSS Quality:

  • Image quality: High clarity and detail, especially on wall textures and metal surfaces. DLSS Quality effectively smoothes edges, preserving sharpness and improving visual depth.
  • Features: Excellent elaboration of small details (for example, rust on barrels), with minimal artifacts thanks to AI processing.

TSR Quality:

  • Image quality: Good detail, close to DLSS Quality but with slightly less pronounced anti-aliasing. Textures look natural, although distant objects can be slightly less sharp.
  • Features: Balanced image with soft anti-aliasing, suitable for stable quality.

FSR Quality:

  • Image Quality: The image is slightly blurry, especially noticeable at the edges of objects (such as the barrel and cylinders). Texture details such as the brick wall are less clear, and small elements (leaves) lose contrast.
  • Features: Anti-aliasing is moderate, but there are some minor artifacts, which is typical for FSR in Quality mode.

Conclusions: DLSS Quality leads in clarity and anti-aliasing, followed by TSR Quality, with FSR Quality falling slightly behind due to blur.

Balanced

DLSS Balanced:

  • Image quality: Good clarity with moderate edge smoothing. Textures on the brick wall and metal objects retain detail, although fine details (such as leaves) are slightly less sharp than in Quality mode.
  • Features: AI-optimized image for smooth, tear-free viewing.

TSR Balanced:

  • Image quality: Slightly less crisp than DLSS Balanced, especially on distant objects. Edge smoothing is soft, but textures look natural.
  • Features: Stable quality with moderate detail, suitable for balanced rendering.

FSR Balanced:

  • Image Quality: Blurry image compared to DLSS and TSR. Object edges (like barrels and cylinders) have noticeable artifacts, and texture details are less pronounced.
  • Features: Less aggressive anti-aliasing, which is noticeable on small elements such as leaves on the ground.

Conclusions: DLSS Balanced excels in clarity and anti-aliasing quality, TSR Balanced follows with a decent result, while FSR Balanced falls behind due to loss of clarity.

Performance

DLSS Performance:

  • Image Quality: The image has a noticeable loss of clarity, especially on brick wall textures and metal objects. Edges are smoothed by the AI, but fine details (like leaves) become less visible.
  • Features: Optimizations are aimed at increasing speed, which results in a slight loss of detail, but maintains the overall readability of the scene.

TSR Performance:

  • Image Quality: Slightly blurrier than DLSS Performance, with moderate edge smoothing. Textures retain acceptable clarity, but distant objects lose detail.
  • Features: The focus on performance ensures stable images with minimal load, but with a compromise in sharpness.

FSR Performance:

  • Image Quality: The blurriest of the three options. Object edges (like barrels and cylinders) have noticeable artifacts, and textures look simplified.
  • Features: Strong reduction in detail for the sake of performance, which is especially noticeable on small elements such as leaves on the ground.

Conclusions: DLSS Performance retains the best quality of the Performance modes, TSR Performance follows with moderate clarity, and FSR Performance shows the greatest loss of detail.

border
Quality of shadows.

Ultra:

  • Image quality: Shadows are extremely detailed, with sharp edges and smooth transitions. Details in textures (such as shadows from leaves and objects) look realistic, especially up close.
  • Features: Highly detailed shadows, which adds depth to the scene, but may require more resources.

High:

  • Image Quality: Shadows remain crisp and detailed, although the softness of transitions is slightly reduced compared to UltraTextures retain good depth, but fine shadow detail is less pronounced.
  • Features: A balanced option with decent detailing, suitable for most systems.

Medium:

  • Image Quality: Shadows are softer, with noticeable simplification of edges. Texture details (such as barrel shadows) lose some of their sharpness, but the overall picture remains acceptable.
  • Features: Moderate quality reduction to optimize performance while maintaining visual integrity.

low:

  • Image Quality: Shadows are heavily simplified, with rough edges and minimal detail. Textures look flat, and fine details (like the shadows of leaves) are barely distinguishable. Most shadows disappear from the screen altogether.
  • Features: Maximum optimization due to significant reduction of shadow detail.

Conclusions: Ultra offers the highest clarity and shadow depth, High follows with good quality, Medium shows noticeable simplification, and Low shows minimal detail.

border
Texture quality.

Ultra:

  • Image Quality: Textures look extremely detailed, with clear tones and depth, especially on surfaces like a brick wall or metal barrels. Small elements (like rust or ground texture) appear more saturated.
  • Features: High detail, noticeable upon close inspection, but not always striking at first glance.

High:

  • Image Quality: Textures retain good clarity, but fine details (such as leaf or rust texture) are a bit dumbed down compared to UltraThe difference is minimal and may not be noticeable without direct comparison.
  • Features: Slight reduction in detail, which has virtually no effect on the overall perception.

Medium:

  • Image Quality: Textures are a little more blurry, especially in the distance. Details like the ground texture or small objects lose some depth, but the difference is still negligible.
  • Features: Moderate simplification to save resources, with minimal visual effect.

low:

  • Image Quality: Textures look the most simplified, with a noticeable loss of sharpness on near and far objects. The difference with other levels becomes slightly more pronounced, but all may still not be obvious without detailed analysis.
  • Features: Maximum optimization, which can manifest itself in a slight "flat" appearance of textures.

Detail: Ultra offers the highest texture detail, High is almost as good, Medium and Low show a gradual simplification, but the differences are minimal and may not be noticeable without careful comparison.

Recommendation: If you don't see a difference visually, Medium or High will be the best balance between quality and performance. Ultra It is worth choosing only for maximum detail, and Low - for weak systems, where saving resources is more important.

border
Global coverage.

Ultra:

  • Image Quality: Global illumination looks extremely realistic, with soft and natural shadows and accurate light rendering on textures (like the brick wall and ground). Reflections and highlights on objects (like barrels) are very detailed.
  • Features: Highly detailed lighting adds depth and volume to the scene, which is noticeable upon close inspection.

High:

  • Image Quality: Lighting remains good, with soft shadows and good highlight rendition, but fine highlight detail (such as on leaves or metal surfaces) is slightly dumbed down compared to Ultra.
  • Features: Balanced level of detail, almost equal to Ultra, but with less load on the system.

Medium:

  • Image Quality: Shadows and lighting are rougher, with a noticeable simplification of light transitions. Texture details (such as reflections on barrels) lose some of their sharpness, but the overall picture remains acceptable.
  • Features: Moderate reduction in quality to optimize performance, with visible but not critical effect.

low:

  • Image Quality: Global illumination is heavily simplified, with hard shadows and minimal detail. Lighting effects on objects (such as leaves or metal) look flat and less realistic.
  • Features: Maximum optimization due to significant reduction in lighting quality.

border
Final World

METAL GEAR SOLID D: SNAKE EATER in the end it feels more like a remaster than a full-fledged remake. Unreal Engine 5 gave a noticeable improvement in graphics - updated lighting, reworked models, support for modern upscalers (DLSS, FSR, TSR) and a cleaner picture. All this makes the game visually fresher and closer to modern standards.

But the depth of changes makes the project seem like a "lazy" remaster. There are indecently few graphics settings: most are reduced to four levels, while the difference between them is minimal and often noticeable only with a detailed comparison. The frame-lock at 60 fps also looks like an outdated solution, limiting the capabilities of more productive systems.

The upscaler test showed the expected picture: DLSS leads in clarity and anti-aliasing, TSR provides a balanced result, and FSR lags noticeably, especially in small details and dynamics. The quality of textures, shadows and lighting differs little between different presets, which deprives the settings of flexibility.

Overall, the remake cannot be called a failure: the picture has become cleaner, brighter and more technologically advanced than in the original, and modern upscalers allow you to adapt the game to different systems. But you should not expect a serious technological leap - we are looking at a careful update of the classics rather than a modern AAA project. For fans, this is a chance to relive the cult story, but for those who were waiting for a demonstration of UE5's capabilities, the remaster is unlikely to be a revelation.