Review: Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (360)

The original Kane & Lynch was a stab at something a little bit different; a third-person shooter starring two unlikeable, but potentially redeeming protagonists thrust head-on into a world of violence and deception. It was a brief, unpolished look into the criminal psyche, packed with plenty of explosions, bad language and a dodgy control scheme. The ideas that it threw around worked well on paper, but when it came down to the crunch the developers were unable to deliver on their vision.

Kane & Lynch 2 is nothing like that game. Well, it is in one sense being a third-person shooter. But really, that is all it has in common with its predecessor. Everything has been stripped down to the bare essentials; the action is more tightly focused, the control scheme is more responsive, and the story decidedly even more one-sided. In essence it has lost some of what made the original game mildly interesting for the sake of focusing on a single concept, with most of the personality of the two leads coming from the highly stylised visual presentation, and the kinds of things that you’ll be doing reduced to lots and lots of shooting.

Now, all this shooting Initially doesn’t seem so bad. And after all, the COD series survives on little else, with only short interludes in between heavy action sequences. However K&L 2 seems to miss the mark by quite some margin in this regard. Yes, there’s plenty of shooting. You do nothing else. And although the game is reasonably polished in some areas, and is pretty fun for a while, it’s also packed with various bugs and glitches meaning that it just doesn’t hold itself together well enough throughout the entire single player campaign.


The action is fast and frenetic and the gunplay is actually quite enjoyable at first. It’s perhaps only let down by the numerous glitches to be found throughout the game, and the relentless nature of the enemy AI, which tends to bring to the surface further problems with regards to weapon balance and implementation.

In the game’s smaller, more confined sections, the constant cat and mouse game between our despicable duo and the legions of enemies works rather well. But when thrown onto the deep end time and time again, with large, wide-open areas full of wave upon wave of enemies coming your way, it all becomes just a little too tiring, and very, very repetitive.

Throughout all of this the enemy AI is actually quite cleaver, constantly ducking and running between cover points, while at the same time trying to flush you out via flanking you from either side, drawing you with short bursts of fire. It definitely feels a cut above the average third-person shooter.


K&L 2 is also pretty relentless at all times, never letting up, and only stopping when it manages to glitch itself into submission; standing still waiting to be shot, or running circles around either two of the lead characters whilst failing to fire their weapon. Enemies also find themselves magically teleporting through, and over various parts of the scenery in moments of frustration and obvious hilarity. The consequences of which is a distinct inability for you being able to track and follow targets effectively.

In other silly moments NPC’s that you are meant to chase/follow occasionally become ‘confused’. You may find them simply standing in one place, or wandering around aimlessly until the game decides to fail you on the mission. Sometimes, these characters will also randomly appear and disappear from out of nowhere; there one minute, then gone the next. I’ve seen the same thing happen to groups of enemies, and even both Kane and Lynch themselves in the ending cut-scene. It’s hardly what I’d consider acceptable for a high-profile release, and annoyingly, feels rather unfinished like the demo.


Combat, for the most part is reasonably solid, with the controls being far more responsive compared to the original K&L. Aiming and shooting feels quick and relatively natural; lining up that crucial head shot is easy, and the only real reason for failure, outside of your varying degree of skill, is the wide-range of your targeting reticule giving you the feeling that the game is deliberately trying to help the more co-ordinately challenged of us take down the opposition.

In reality, although easier for beginners, it also makes it harder for experienced players, lending the game’s targeting system to feel somewhat inaccurate at times. However, the real problem comes into play when you realise that many of the weapons you encounter throughout the game do very little damage, and the ones that do, are considerably unbalanced. The shotgun for example, delivers the same amount of damage regardless of how far away you are from your intended target. Whilst the pistol and various machine guns do very little, even at close range, unless a headshot is clearly made - something that isn’t as easy to judge, as it should be.


Thankfully, moving around the environment and getting in and out of cover is a much simpler affair than in the original. Pushing the ‘A’ button on the controller when up against a wall, table, etc activates the cover mechanic, and pushing it again releases you. For the most part the system is pretty good, and I didn’t have too much trouble with it until the later parts of the game.

It’s only here, where you’ll really realise how inconsistent the implementation can be. Slow, is perhaps a too strong a word to use, even though your commands fail to respond fast enough in intense situations. Usually, this happens after you’ve just ran up to a surface for cover, pushing the button the instant you get there. In instances like this the game doesn’t recognise what you’ve done. Instead, you have to wait for a split second or so before attempting the cover move or it won’t register at all.

Although the overall cover system is a massive improvement over the one used before in the first Kane & Lynch, it isn’t really polished enough to help you in dealing with the constant barrage of enemies being thrown your way. Not when they can move around at unbelievable speeds using the game’s own glitches against you, even if this is just a side effect of the unfinished nature of the title.


Occasionally the non-stop action duck and cover action is broken up with some explosive set pieces, containing yet… even more shooting. There are some cool touches included; like tearing up a building full of Chinese Mafia goons killing dozens of enemies in nearly every room you pass, which provides a more laid-back, and mindless on-rails element giving you a chance to take a ‘time out’ in an odd kind of way. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of these sections to be found, and some are so short and under-whelming that they almost appear pointlessly tacked-on the end as a means for avoiding doing anything of real substance.

And that’s the problem with Kane & Lynch 2. The game is so caught up in delivering a never-ending spectacle of gunfights and explosions that it fails to see how lacking and completely shallow it is. Just a few months ago developers IO interactive promised that we would see a deeper storyline compared to the first game, fleshing out Lynch’s character and maybe taking you closer into what makes him tick, why he is the way he is, and how even he has some humanity left in him.


False promises then, as that element seems to be completely avoided in this sequel; what we have here is nothing more than a few sound bytes between each mission, a brief cinematic, and not a lot else. Playing through the game it is kinda hard to follow just what is supposed to be happening, let alone the reasoning behind it. I gather you’re being hunted down after a botched arms deal, and that the Chinese Mafia is after your blood after you accidentally killed the daughter of a Mob boss. But really, that’s about it. Each cut-scene simply ends with more enemies shooting at you, and does nothing but introduce the next piece of action.

The two leads also are left as simple caricatures of their former selves, spouting foul-mouthed banter, and brief expositions of plot as you run around gunning down everyone in sight. But never is any time given to explore the characters and their motivations, meaning that you never care for them, or really feel any impact when they are faced with the horrid reality of their situation. Instead it just feels like a game, and that the story is just a bit of filler in between. Which, it is, but it doesn’t always have to be like that though.


Instead, most of the game’s personality comes from the highly stylised visual presentation, in which the entire look of K&L 2 is covered in a grainy, pixelated, and blocky security cam video type effect, perfectly blending in the nature of the two lead’s with the grimy underworld they find themselves in. The screen constantly changes between being mildly clean, to featuring heavy bouts of film grain and YouTube-esque macroblocking, all contributing to the underlying shady nature of both the environment and the people that inhabit it.

A shaky-cam effect also adds more realism to the proceedings. The whole game is seen through the eyes of what looks like a snuff movie recording of sorts, capturing every detail of your actions, and censoring out the most gruesome parts entirely. Whilst pretty stylish to look at, the shaky nature of the camerawork leads easily to some pretty prevalent motion sickness if you’re not careful. The Gears Of War style run is the main culprit for this, and can make you go from feeling fine, to incredibly nauseous in just a few seconds.

The presentation and the smooth, responsive controls are easily the highlights of the experience. Visually the game isn’t all that great, being noticeably soft at times due to its sub-HD nature. And the single-player campaign is way too short, with it being possible to complete in under five hours in a single sitting – I did it in four over Xbox Live in co-op. Still, the game is reasonably fun to play online (either in co-op or against others) when the glaring flaws don’t rear their ugly heads to often. Plus, the duck and cover shooting on offer is actually pretty good, and reasonably enjoyable taken in short bursts rather than an afternoon slog.


All things considered, Kane & Lynch 2 is a noticeable improvement over the first game with regards to its core gameplay mechanics and intense gunplay. But, it is also a lot simpler, with none of the variety of the original, and much of what made it so potentially interesting stripped away down to a repetitive third-person shooter, with only brief flashes of brilliance. The story is paper thin, and the characters are barely given ample exposure to develop their personalities. Plus, the whole engine feels largely unfinished, suffering from occasional crashes and plenty of visible glitches.

However, that’s not to say that you won’t find gain some enjoyment from gunning down the many waves of enemies you’ll face throughout the game. Although your time spent is as likely to be one of equal parts frustration as it is fun. And these days that just isn’t good enough for such a high profile release.

In the end IO Interactive have produced a distinctly average shooter, coated in a unique gritty visual style, and well, not much else. The endless combat can only sustain your interest for so long, and the seemingly unfinished engine reeks of a rush job to market. The controls and action may be better than the first, as is the overall polish behind the game. But it comes at the expense of any real substance, and doesn’t do the underlying idea of playing a mentally unstable psychopath any justice. Kane & Lynch 2 then, is wasted potential that perhaps warrants a rental or a cheap bargain-bin purchase for curiosity’s sake, but in no way deserves your attention as a full price product.

VERDICT: 5/10

Tech Analysis: Mafia II Demo (PS3 vs 360)

It is pretty commonplace to say that titles which feature much in the way of dense foliage, high levels of geometry and plenty of alpha-based transparency effects usually have serious issues with performance on consoles. The framerate often tends to suffer, texture detail gets scaled back, and sometimes the framebuffer resolution takes a massive dive. All of these things not only impact on overall image quality but also take you firmly out of the lavish world the developers have tried so hard to create.

Large, open-world, sandbox type affairs is where this kind of thing happens the most. These types of games are rarely suited to the constrained nature of home console hardware specifications. Even when properly optimised, they still require a large memory footprint, not to mention a hefty chunk of GPU power - a commodity not quite as widely available as you might think given the Uncharted’s and Killzone’s of this world.

Mafia II is one of those games. But unlike the with Red Dead Redemption, the game isn’t anywhere near as polished, with the developers attempting to cram in every last detail of the lead PC version onto the consoles with somewhat mixed results. The world created here is huge and incredibly detailed, with not only high poly counts, but also lots of small intricate touches which really bring out the noticeable attention to detail that has gone into nearly every facet of the game’s visual make up. It’s this approach, which not only provides a genuinely immersive experience, but one that also causes the game no end of problems on both platforms.

It’s also these problems that at times really threaten to derail the experience - the feel that you are indeed part of a living, breathing 1950’s videogame world, and your enjoyment of that world. Although after playing each demo for several hours this doesn’t always seem to be the case. But the problems are pretty distracting at times, and at the very least the game could have benefited from additional polish and optimisations before release. Maybe in the final game we shall see some changes, but we’ll just have to wait and see.



Despite what the screenshots on this page might be telling you on first glance, Mafia II actually renders in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms, with the blurriness found in some of the screens down to an additional blur filter being layered over parts of the image during the final stage of rendering.

As per usual the 360 version of the game receives 2xMSAA (multisampling anti-aliasing), while the PS3 is left with no AA at all, which is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from most multiplatform conversions these days. However, it is apparent that the 360’s use of AA here in Mafia II isn’t quite as good as it could be, as although 2x is applied largely to the whole image it also fails to succeed in managing the amount of jagged edges which appear throughout the game.

In any given scene some parts of it clearly get 2x AA, whilst other obviously do not. This faliure of dealing with aliasing also doesn’t appear to be due to any high contrasting pixel edges, as even in mid to dark areas with very little in the way of drastic contrast changes the AA fails as effortlessly as it does elsewhere. Instead, it simply appears that 2K Czech’s method of implementing 2xMSAA simply isn’t all that effective when mixed with all the other rendering elements in the engine. Comparatively, the PC version also suffers from this problem also, proving that it is definitely something with how the AA conflicts with other parts of the graphics make up.

As we mentioned earlier Mafia II also includes an additional blur filter on top of the 2xMSAA found in the 360 build, and no AA in the PS3 one. This is basically a 1-pxel wide edge blur, and it is applied to surfaces after the anti-aliasing has been done, much like the effect we saw back in the Dante’s Inferno demo on the 360.

Effectively, this results in a heightened amount of softness in the overall image which almost negates the use of rendering in full 720p. Instead the developers could have cut out the blur, rendered in slightly lower sub-HD resolution, and clawed back some of the performance they so seem to be missing.

The PS3 build also gets the same method of blur. However, the lack of AA means that despite this additional effect the overall image is sharper compared to that of the 360 build.

Bizarrely, this effect on the PS3 is pretty inconsistent compared to the one found on the 360 game, and also doesn’t seem to be as strong either. Sometimes the entire scene is completely blurred, while at other times it only seems to affect certain objects rather than everything on screen. The blur doesn’t appear to be selective either, so we’re not sure quite what is going on. It’s rather strange to say the least.



Now given the overall open world nature of the game the use of a full 720p frame buffer with or without AA is pretty impressive, especially when you consider how much stuff is being rendered in order to make up the richly detailed game world. It is no surprise then, to learn that certain effects have had to be paired back in order to allow for this feat to happen.

For one, much of the game’s foliage - simple 2D sprites which always turn and rotate towards facing the camera – and other such parts of the world are rendered in a lower resolution compared to the rest of the scene. And this applies to both platforms, which generally share similar compromises in maintaining high detail levels. There are of course some differences between the two versions, mainly pertaining to the use of varying blend effects for transparencies, the amount of foliage on screen, and the higher saturation of lighting in the 360 game.

As you can see in the screenshots below, the 360 build is using A2C for blending all of it’s alpha effects on foliage, while the PS3 is using some other method, though apparently it isn’t plain old alpha coverage.



A2C is normally chosen in order to save on overall memory bandwidth costs and additional processing power. Basically transparencies and objects which use it are rendered in an interlaced manner of sorts, effectively halving their resolution. The result is a screendoor look to everything that uses it, and a distinctly grainy appearance. This grainy look is usually blended away through the use of high levels of MSAA making this side effect far less noticeable. However, since the 360 build’s implementation of AA is less than successful it fails to work in doing this.

Combined with the blur filter and broken AA solution the foliage, like the rest of the game, appears very soft and distinctly sub-HD even in areas when it is not. By comparison, the PS3 build features much sharper looking foliage due to not using A2C, and by skipping over the broken AA solution entirely.

This additional sharpness, along with using a different blend technique for transparencies means that unlike on 360 the foliage tends to suffer from terrible shimmering, and plenty of crawling jagged edges. Pretty much everything from the foliage, to the buildings and power lines are affected by this, and it can be really unsightly.

Furthermore, the PS3 version has also seen additional cut backs to the levels of detail on offer throughout the game, and lacks the distinct shading method known as SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion).

In order to work around the tighter memory constraints found in Sony’s machine, including the lack of available EDRAM (read: none) the developers have paired back much of the foliage on the PS3 game, reducing certain areas from densely packed fields of front lawn grass into a series of flat looking texture maps. It’s pretty disappointing to say the least, and really gives the game a flatter look overall compared to the other versions of the game.

Another thing is that the LOD system appears to be slightly more forceful on the PS3 build leading to higher levels of pop-up and less immediately visible on screen details. Thankfully it is only subtly worse than the 360 build, with the LOD issue being more noticeable in certain areas than others.

However, the foliage and LOD is really the only elements which has been noticeably cut back in terms of creating environment detail on PS3, leaving the rest of the game looking basically the same. This is both a good and a bad thing as it means that the un-optimised code constantly struggles to maintain any kind of consistent framerate, with lots of screen tear and heavy dips in smoothness.



In terms of shadowing differences, on the 360 side of things you have the inclusion of SSAO, which used to create an extra sense of depth to the image that you wouldn’t find with traditional shading alone. Sadly the use of this effect is particularly bad, and so inconsistently poor in its implementation that I have to wonder why the developers even decided to include it. Instead they could have feed up additional GPU power for other things if it simply wasn’t there. Certainly, the additional impression of depth wasn’t worth the effort.

The SSAO in Mafia II is clearly rendered in a very low resolution and suffers from noticeable pixelation at times, leading to shadows that can appear fuzzy and rather shimmery as a result, making the game look more rough around the edges than perhaps it should.

Shadows also appeared dithered on the 360 causing further artifacts which stick out noticeably compared to the PS3 build’s cleaner approach. Like with the use of A2C on the foliage, shadows look somewhat grainy, and are pretty fuzzy around the edges. The PS3 game also features slightly dithered shadows, but thankfully not to the same extent as found on the 360.

Outside of these graphical differences both versions of the game look very similar, if not mostly identical. That is to say that they are both lavishly detailed, and contain lots of neat little touches throughout. Everything from power lines to small backyard and side street fences are represented here, along with cracked kerbside slabs and subtle differences in similar building architecture have been meticulously implemented. It’s pretty impressive to say the least, and accurately matches up to the high-spec PC version.

Having this level of attention to detail on any console game compared to its PC counterpart is looking for trouble, especially when trying to achieve a decent level of performance without sacrificing playability. And this is exactly where Mafia II falls down. The game simply cannot hope to achieve a stable framerate when so much is being pushed around on screen at any given time, not to mention a near constant lack of being able to hold v-sync.

It is pretty obvious that the developers were originally aiming for a baseline framerate around the 30fps mark, with the overall framerate being allowed to drop off in heavy load situations. However, the game very rarely reaches that point at all throughout the demo. Even when starting out in the confines of your home, free from all the dense levels of detail visible outside, the framerate still takes a heavy dive below the expected 30fps, ending up somewhere in the mid 20’s, or often less.

In fact, the game regularly runs at between 20 to 25fps with drops venturing down to the 15fps mark in busy situations, and this causes no end of problems from erratic controller responsiveness, to an increase in noticeable jagged edges and aliasing artifacts. The additional controller lag when such constant drops in smoothness happen is what really impacts on the gameplay experience on offer here. I would even go as far as to say that it can make the game near unplayable at times, with your ability to accurately aim and take out the enemy being compromised continuously.

Most titles that suffer from such heavy framerate drops do so because the developers have decided to use v-sync in order to prevent the noticeable screen-tearing that would otherwise occur due to the constant changes in screen refresh. Sadly, Mafia II isn’t one of them. And as far as I can tell the game doesn’t even try to employ any kind of v-sync to help balance out the terrible framerate issues. Instead, what you are left with is a title that suffers from both large constant drops in framerate, and heavy screen tear – mostly at the same time - which affects both platforms to an almost equal extent, with the PS3 version coming off worse in the end.

Most noticeable is the fact that a large percentage of the tearing is happening right in the centre of the screen, thus greatly impacting on not only your overall field of view, but also providing a clear distraction which serves only to further hinder your progress. At worst, the game will decide to drop down to around 20fps and allow for heavy mid-screen tearing to occur, during which a reduction in controller response time, and the uneven refresh rate make any kind of quick and concise play completely useless in larger action sequences.

The PS3 game also tends to tear slightly more frequently than the 360 one. Thankfully this occurs mostly in the overscan area of the screen, so it’s not noticeable in real-world terms. However, the game does drop its framerate more heavily in the same situations as the 360 build, which is a different story altogether.

Overall, there’s simply no question that Mafia II’s general performance is sub-par, and is perhaps one of the worst titles that I have come across this generation when comparing games on either platform to other similar releases.

Despite featuring copious amounts of detail, and lots of subtleties everywhere you look, Mafia II clearly suffers from huge framerate issues, intrusive screen tearing, and a host of other noticeable graphical problems, all of which really show up the game’s original ‘made for PC’ heritage. Failing to properly optimise the title for consoles is exactly why, unlike Red Dead Redemption, Mafia II fails to command your senses in the way Rockstar’s title does so effortlessly.

It’s such a shame as 2K Games have created a world that is so full of personality, packed with intricate little details that it is so easy to initially become immersed in when you are first starting out. Unfortunately the game’s poor framerate, terrible jagged edges, and overall soft looking display completely take you out of the experience. Also hampering your potential enjoyment of the title is the laggy control which manifests itself whenever the framerate drops. And sadly that is pretty much continuously, regardless of whether anything intensive is happening on screen or not.

In conclusion, it is hard to recommend either console version of Mafia II. Both builds suffer terribly from various performance and graphical related problems. Although in the end it is the 360 version which is slightly less unsightly to look at, due to less edge shimmering and aliasing, even if the result is a blurrier image overall. The use of low-res SSAO and dithered shadows is a strong negative point however, and does distract from the noticeably more detailed foliage.

Personally, when it comes down to it I’d track down the vastly superior PC version of the game, in which it should be possible to achieve at least 720p with 2xMSAA at 60fps on a mid-spec gaming rig - something which both the PS3 and 360 can only dream of with regards to this release.

Thanks to Mr Deap for our comparison screens, and as always to AlStrong for his superb pixel counting skills.

Tech Analysis: Singularity (PS3 vs 360)

Singularity is another one of those games which sits directly in between being distinctly average and almost underrated, perhaps veering more towards the former rather than the later. But anyway, Raven Games’ cold war era scientific and supernatural FPS throws around a few interesting ideas, and a cool time dilating mechanic which seemingly should be making a stronger appearance than it does here.

When talking about the game it’s hard not to mention other similar titles such as Bioshock, and Wolfenstien, both of which Singularity seems to take influence from, especially with regards to its dark and gloomy atmosphere and use of warped human-engineered technology. You can also feel touches of Valve’s masterpiece Half-Life 2 flowing through some of the experience too, mostly arriving whenever that time-dilation device is in hand.



Using the popular Unreal Engine 3, Raven games have actually created a technically competent release, one that actually fairs extremely well on both platforms. Usually the PS3 is the one to suffer with titles using the Unreal Engine, often having significant cuts in rendering resolution and alpha buffer size for transparencies and other such graphical effects. But not so with Singularity, which demonstrates that it is possible to almost achieve parity when taking the time and care to do so.

In motion both versions look pretty much identical. Or rather, most of the time they ‘do’ look identical. It’s hard to tell them apart other than from the occasional slightly more jagged edges on PS3, and the loss of a few specular effects in areas with lots of water. That and some performance issues are the only things separating the two versions apart.


Singularity is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both Xbox 360 and on PS3. As per usual with games released for both formats, and those using the UE3, 360 owners get 2xMSAA while the PS3 gets no anti-aliasing of any kind.

However this isn’t quite as bigger deal as you might think. When in motion the use of 2xMSAA on 360 does very little if anything to set it apart from the PS3 game. The reason behind this is that the AA used in the 360 version is selective. It’s only applied on certain objects and in certain areas in specific conditions, meaning that most of the time it’s barely there at all. We’ve seen the same thing before with the UE3 on both Gears Of War 1&2 which only apply AA on objects without movement, or when you are standing still.

Seeing as the game features very little in the way of high contrasting edges the PS3 version rarely looks to display any more jaggies than the 360 game, and any differences are only really visible when both versions are put side by side in screenshots. So whilst 360 owners can boast about having AA included, in reality it’s more of a checkbox feature here than a real benefit to the graphical quality of the game.



Moving on we can see that texture detail is like for like across both platforms, as is the game’s use of texture filtering. AF levels appear reasonably good, though not exceptional, and just seem to get the job done of displaying clean-ish textures in the distance. Usually it’s the PS3 which commands the advantage in this area with RSX’s larger amount of texturing units, but this is clearly not the case here. In fact it’s the 360 which shows a greater level of AF than usually seen with many multiplatform titles, normally satisfied with going in for a bilinear or trilinear approach.

One area in which the PS3 version does edge ahead of the 360 build however, is with regards to the game’s lighting and shadowing system, which looks slightly more refined. Texture details and certain graphical effects tend to be accentuated, standing out almost like there is some kind of subtle AO going on, even though we know that there isn’t. Shadows are also subtly more defined, creating an added sense of depth to the image.


In terms of particle effects and alpha buffers both versions seem to look identical, with no lower resolution discrepancies to be found anywhere in the PS3 version. The striking similarity between the two can be seen in the screenshot above, where even when a large part of the screen is filled with effects the PS3 still manages to stay par the course along with the 360 every step of the way.

This is in start contrast to Bioshock 2 in which the PS3 build featured lower resolution effects for smoke, fire, water, and electricity, noticeably reducing the game’s overall image quality. Thankfully, for the most part, the same thing doesn’t happen here.


Interestingly the same cannot be said for the use of specular effects and normal maps. Here it’s the 360 build that commands a small but visible lead over the PS3 game. All normal maps in areas that feature water or wet surfaces are dialled back on PS3, and in turn lack the same levels of depth and intensity compared to what you can see on 360. Some areas feature lower resolution normal maps too, further reducing overall quality.

The above screenshots clearly shows off the differences between the two versions. Notice how on the walls in particular the normal mapping is less obvious on PS3, and that the effects creating their shiny wetness are clearly in a slightly lower resolution compared to the rest of the scene.

This is perhaps the biggest difference between the two outside of the PS3’s better use of lighting and shadowing, and the 360’s small commanding lead in overall performance.


So far nether version has really come out on top, with the PS3’s superior lighting being countered by the higher resolution normal mapping found in the 360 game. Instead it’s down to performance to perhaps provide us with the clearest look as to which version is technically superior. After all, frame rate issues and screen tear tend to have far more of an impact during gameplay than some cutback visual effects.

Not so surprisingly the differences apparent here aren’t all that noticeable. In the end the PS3 game does demonstrate more in the way of both screen tear and framerate drops, but also does so more subtly than you might think. Most of the extra tearing that occurs in the Sony version is only really present in the overscan area of the screen, meaning that most people will never see it. Another thing is that although the PS3 game does indeed fare slightly worse than the 360 one overall, the same issues are also present in that version too, just to a lesser extent.

Both versions start off running at 30fps and try to attempt to remain v-synced for the duration. However it is clear that the PS3 losses v-sync more often than the 360 casuing a small increase in screen tear. Surprisingly, even when the PS3 build does lose its command of this, the effect has no bearing on framerate whatsoever. Usually the way it seems to work is that the PS3 version substitutes a consistent framerate in order to maintain v-sync and in turn suffer from less screen tearing as a result. Whilst on 360 most developers favour the approach of dropping v-sync in order to keep a higher framerate.

Here we have a situation where we get more tearing and greater framerate drops on PS3 and less on 360. However, despite this there is very little in between the two when simply playing the game without looking for these things. Yes, some differences are subtly noticeable, but at the same time they are not game breaking or at all intrusive for that matter. Arguably the 360 does maintain a small lead in terms of performance, a lead that in the grand scale of things does very little in making it definitively superior overall; much like the build’s inclusion of anti-aliasing.


In conclusion Singularity is pretty much equal on both platforms. The PS3 game benefits from having slightly better lighting and shadowing, whilst 360 owners get better normal mapping and a small lead in commanding performance. When it comes down to it though, in motion you’d be hard pressed to tell them apart, and many of the things pointed out here I could only see when lining up the games side by side when standing still – not something you’d normally be doing when playing.

Your purchasing decision then solely comes down to which controller layout you prefer, and which of the two systems you like to use the most. Anyone looking to try out the game shouldn’t have any concerns as to which version they choose to buy, as it’s pretty much identical across the board.

Editorial: Kinect - The Price Of Admission

The price of any new product is always hotly debated, especially when the item in question is being positioned for consumption by the mass market, the largely mainstream segment of gaming society. This is exactly what has been happening this past week with Microsoft’s Kinect. Ever since the estimated launch price for the US was revealed, people have speculated on how much the device would cost in the UK; how much it should, or would need to sell for in order to be successful, no more so than when ShopTo.net revealed what it believed would be the price for the unit here in the UK.


North American retailers have been pricing the Kinect at $150 for the last couple of weeks, which roughly translates to around £100 in direct conversion, and allowing for other market factors to effect overall cost. At the end of last week UK site ShopTo.net started taking preorders for the device set to cost £129.99 in the UK. Or so they are estimating. Many other retailers have also spoken out on how much they think Kinect will retail for when it hits the UK in November this year. A vast majority believe that anything from £100 to £150 is possible, squarely in the range of Nintendo’s Wii console, and firmly ahead of Sony’s PlayStation Move.

The price then, roughly equates to a direct, or near thereabouts conversion between US and UK, with the overall bracket set to ensure the best return for Microsoft but not the most value for money for consumers. Playstation Move on the other hand, is relatively cheap. It has a confirmed RRP of just £59.99 for both the Move controller and PlayStation Eye camera. The Navigation controller will go on sale separately for £24.99, taking the total cost of getting the complete Move experience to just £84.99, some fifteen pounds less than the £100 entry price so many retailers believe is necessary for the Kinect to have widespread success at launch, outside the standard core Xbox 360 user.

Speak to any retailer, or in turn most market analylists, and they will tell you that a sub-£100 price point is absolutely essential to drive forward sales aimed at the casual market - the Wii’s market. Many in that market won’t already have a 360 console, so in essence Microsoft would need to provide both to the consumer at an almost impulse buy price, something below £200 but confortably above the Wii. Though, for this to happen they need to have the base Kinect unit selling for somewhat lower than the £130 ShopTo.net seem to be suggesting.

£79.99 for the Kinect on its own, or maybe with one bundled set of mini-games is exactly the price tag most retailers in the UK, both on the high street and online want to see. A price tag that appears instantly more affordable to the casual user - something that isn’t going to break the bank, and that will tempt them in on there own accord. Suffice to say, that might not be happening, and might not actually be possible, as various sources have stated that the Kinect actually costs close to $150 dollars to make, meaning that Microsoft will be loosing money on every sale, or at least only just breaking even.

In that sense you can see why the company is being rather coy with UK pricing. Perhaps it is testing the waters, seeing how much interest there is for the device if it was to be priced up at over the £100 mark. And in this regard the low amount of preorders as reported by ShopTo.net seems to show that there is very little.

Of course it may not just be the price putting people off. At E3 most hands-on reports of software for the Kinect was poorly received, plagued by a high amount of lag, and a lack of any real precision when tracking player movements. Now, whilst this is unlikely to matter to the mainstream consumer – who is likely just to see the device and think ‘that looks like fun’ no matter the technical issues – it does create a negative buzz around the unit somewhat, especially when the PlayStation Move has already started to prove its worth in games like Socom, in which the response time and accuracy is said to be incredibly impressive - a substitute for the standard DualShock controller. You then begin to see just how important it is for Microsoft to get the launch price right. Too little, and they loose too much money for it to be viable as a way of propping up 360 sales, and too high, and they’ll fail to attract the mainstream consumer.

And that’s the point. Unlike PlayStation Move Kinect isn’t designed to be some kind of hardcore device that also plays up to the casual market. It IS designed and aimed at precisely that particular market, and in order to meet the needs of that market has to be priced accordingly. The Move can been seen as a premium product as such, tied in with the PlayStation 3 brand but at a fraction of the cost of what ‘premium’ means to most people. Microsoft on the other hand, seem to be aiming Kinect at everyone but at a higher more premium-like price tag, if ShopTo.net have in fact got their estimations right.

So, I think it’s clear that in order to guarantee the success that Microsoft would like it is essential that the price of Kinect stays low, around £100 would just be the clincher, though at £79.99 everyone can be tempted in for a go. And ‘guarantee’ they must, as Nintendo’s Wii can be picked up for as little as £149.99 in most places, and for £169.99 with a game in others. Move also looks very attractive in its £59.99 guise, and especially at around £85 for the whole set.

Microsoft definitely needs to consider these things in addition to their target audience – they don’t appear to have the sometimes fanboyistic nature of the core gamer behind Kinect – and perhaps should meet at some kind of compromise. After all, while the device sounds promising on paper it has failed to back up any of its initial fanfare with any revolutionary, must-have pieces of software, something that the Move is slowly heading towards with the likes of Killzone 3 and Socom.

At the end of the day both companies need to come out flying, and so far neither of them has done anywhere near enough to justify a massively successful, sell-out launch. Pricing aside, the quality of software for both Kinect and PlayStaion Move leaves a lot to be desired. You need more than just a bunch of Wii-too mini-games, or a singularly impressive, hardcore experience in order to make this work. You arguably need a bit of both, coupled with the right price tag to boot. Just look at the Wii as an example, it’s a perfect combination of brilliant marketing, and some solid, but overly sparse, high-quality software.

The price given for Kinect on ShopTo.net is just an estimate, and not the final RRP of the unit. Microsoft have yet to set a final retail price for the device, although most reports strongly place it in the £100-£150 price bracket.

Tech Analysis: Crackdown 2 Demo

Most people picked up Crackdown not for the actual game itself (although there was interest in it) but for the upcoming Halo 3 beta, in which access would be granted directly from within the game's menu screen. On top of that they would find a highly enjoyable, and surprisingly different take on the free roaming, open world genre.

Crackdown wasn’t simply a ‘me too’ Grand Theft Auto type experience, but something altogether removed from Rockstar’s world of sandbox brilliance. Highly stylised, and bringing a cartoon vibe to the genre, it delivered flashy, superhero-turned-cop themed action to gamers in a way that completely embodied the spirit of GTA, but without the grime.

Crackdown 2 then has been born out of love for the original game, with the people at Ruffian Games committed to bringing gamers not only more of the same, but also a completely improved version of the game as a whole, with reworked graphics, larger, more intense gameplay segments, and expansion of the original’s much loved online multiplayer mode.

Initially, this sequel looks, and feels very much like the original. The cartoon-esque feel running throughout the game is back in full force, along with the cell shaded visuals which create that effect - those heavy black lines clearly defining characters from their environments – and a slight change to a more gritty visual style bringing about more naturality to the image, rather than the original’s full-blown, pastel-coloured and intensely lit environments.

Compared to the first game Crackdown 2 is grittier looking, with more realistic lighting which is distinctly controlled, and not simply blasted out on full like in the first game. The result, a slightly darker looking game with greater image balance making things more comfortable to look at, whilst also depicting the rundown nature of the city since events of the original Crackdown.


The framerate runs at a mostly solid 30 frames per-second, with initially very little in the way of slowdown. I was surprised at just how smooth the game was during hectic encounters with ten, even twenty enemies on screen all at once, explosions being set off and carnage ensuing in the aftermath. Slowdown it seems only occurs when there is a huge amount going on at the same time, and even then I didn’t find all that much in the way of sharp spikes in smoothness, either up or down. Instead the game manages its framerate extremely well, favouring smaller dips rather than the heavy drops of PS3 GTA IV or Red Dead.

Crackdown 2 also seems to be v-synced most of the time, although screen tearing is present and is pretty noticeable when it properly occurs, it only really happens in more intense situations when the screen is busy, and I mean really busy. For much of the time the game would show what looked like a judder enveloping the entire screen, very slight in nature and almost as if the game had caught up with any frames it was about to tear. Suffice to say, it isn’t an issue during normal play, and the game quickly regains control of the v-sync in spite of the occasional blip.

In terms of comparing these findings with that of the original Crackdown, I can’t really tell you in-depth how well it performed compared to this sequel because it’s been a while since I last played it. I can tell you however, that there seems to be less screen tear in Crackdown 2, and that the larger framerate drops only occur when the engine is put under greater pressure. In these situations there is clearly more happening on screen than in the first game, so you could say that the engine has seen increased stability to what we were seeing before.

What does appear the same as the first game is the sequel’s rendering resolution and use of anti-aliasing. Crackdown 2 renders at 1280x720 (720p) and uses 2xMSAA which comes as standard with most Xbox 360 titles.


Visually the game looks very clean and sharp, with character edges appearing rather striking due to both the cell shaded look, and highly stylised art direction. Jaggies are kept under control for both environments and characters - even with high contrasting edges which is pretty impressive - although with only 2x edge smoothing not completely eliminated. Some edges receive clear AA, and others less so. Pretty much standard fare 2xMSAA, but with what looks like a better AA sampling to coverage ratio.

The cartoon-esque look of the game also means that any jaggies present don’t always distract or intrude as much as they would in more realistic looking titles, and the game seems to apply AA more successfully here than compared to other titles using the same 2x solution.

Outside of performance and image quality crackdown 2 fares quite well, featuring some improvements and some cutbacks over the first game.

Water in this sequel look far better than before, featuring better use of shaders and texture based-effects, plus the overall lighting system has been given a few tweaks and subtle enhancements over what was present in the first game. The streetlights in particular are now rendered in a higher resolution compared to Crackdown 1, and without that strange bloom effect that seemed to afflict them.

The developers are also pushing more stuff around on screen with a greater amount of maximum enemies appearing at any one time, and environmental detail getting a noticeable increase in places. LOD has also been tweaked and is less aggressive than in the first game, showing off the extra details for further into the distance without cutting back on them too early on. This goes well with the upped levels of foliage, railings, and general details present throughout the game.


All this use of less aggressive LOD, more environment detail, and higher resolution transparency effects do come at a cost however, with the developers cutting back on both texture detail and the way the clouds are rendered compared to the first game.

There is less detail on environmental textures in Crackdown 2, which is quite noticeable in places compared to the original, although the more dense nature of the environment negates this somewhat, as does the improved lighting and increase in texture filtering.

The clouds on the other hand loose their volumetric look, and appear very flat compared to the ones displayed in the original. I can only guess that in order to increase overall performance that they had to scale back on certain things to make this happen, especially as they were building upon an engine which pre-dates the Xbox 360 in it’s development cycle. So asking for a complete re-write maybe would have been too much, and in any case hardly anyone is likely to care, or notice in the long run. Most people will just want to play more Crackdown.

Thing is, as a whole this sequel simply looks better than the first. Some flatter looking clouds and weaker texturing cannot take away from the many improvements that the engine has seen; least of all tarnish the overall graphical polish added to the experience. Granted, Crackdown 2 looks decidedly basic, and well, pretty flat, but at the same time is adhering to it’s own art style which is arguably one of the main differentiating points outside the outlandish open-world action the game provides.

Hardly impressive by today’s standards, but well suited all the same.


In conclusion then, Crackdown 2 represents a small improvement over the original game graphically, with some downgrades, but at the same time those changes were made for the benefit of the gameplay and not, as with many titles, just to visually allure the audience into more of the same.

What we should remember is that the engine is there to facilitate the gameplay, and not the other way around. So, in that respect Ruffian Games have achieved exactly that, delivering improvements which fit in with the style of the game, and the expanded gameplay integral to making this sequel more than just a rehash.

BBC iPlayer 3 On The Way To PS3?

The PS3 may already have a version of the BBC iPlayer, but according to site Tech Radar, and the BBC’s web developer Simon Cross, a new version of the popular video streaming service may be making an appearance on Sony’s system sometime later this year.


BBC’s iPlayer 3 is currently doing the rounds as a beta test on PCs for various web browsers and is set to include social networking features, and possible Facebook support further on down the line. Other upgrades include a new ‘For You’ section that essentially recommends you new programmes based on what you’ve been watching.

Cross also told the site that they were in the process of working out how to allow access to the iPlayer for users without them having to sign in before be able to view content, making the new experience as user friendly as possible.

"We don't know whether to integrate it with the PSN signing in process or do something new," he said.

With regards to 360 owners however, nothing was really said about a version of the application for Microsoft's console. And seeing as there are still issues with the company wanting to make the service only available to Gold Xbox Live subscribers - which is against the BBC’s policy as everyone already pays for the service via the TV licence - it could take a while for the matter to be resolved.

"It's great what has been done with Facebook on Xbox Live, so I hope something similar can be done with the iPlayer."

At the moment there’s no date set for the PS3 version of the iPlayer 3, although it will definitely arrive at some point later in the year. While 360 owners on the other hand are obviously left completely in the dark until things are sorted out between Microsoft and the BBC.

Tech Report: Inside The Xbox 360 Slim

Earlier on in the week at E3 in Los Angeles Microsoft unveiled the brand new slim version of the Xbox 360, finally ending rumours of a new outer casing design and internal component revisions. We first reported on the 360 slim way back in march when photos of its motherboard were leaked onto the internet, showcasing what looked like a combined CPU/GPU on a single chip or die, and boasting a more efficient single fan cooling system. Now, with the console starting to filter into homes and into the hands of various tech-savvy enthusiasts, we can finally take a look under the hood of the machine and its internals.

Those of you expecting any last minute revelations are likely to be disappointed, as much of what we said back in our original 360 slim report was pretty much 100% correct. The use of a combined CPU/GPU and EDRAM, internal fitting hard drive, optical output, and external power supply are all correct and present, as is too the lack of any memory card slots or ability to use the old 360 hard drives on the new unit.


Looking at the final retail console’s motherboard (pics of which are quickly circulating around online) we can see that this latest revision of the 360 console uses the long-time rumoured Valhalla chipset, which consists of a CPU, GPU, and EDRAM all on one package. I say package as each of the chips are single entities housed all on one die, with the CPU and GPU produced on a 45nm process node.

As for the EDRAM, well it looks like that might also be produced at 45nm like the other two chips, although this isn’t confirmed. Last we heard TSMC were having trouble shrinking down the EDRAM on a 45nm process so we surmised that it might have to be done on something like 55nm. This now doesn’t seem to be the case, with sources pointing to the chip being finally fabbed at 45nm, which also goes hand in hand with reports that the Valhalla chipset as a whole is being manufactured at the Global Foundries owned Chartered Semiconductor.

Anyhow, the brand new single die design means that the chip runs a lot cooler than previous versions, which are larger and more power hungry. The advantage is that the new slim can be cooled with just one fan, and an efficient heat dissipation system build around that design. To that end the fan covering the CPU/GPU/EDRAM package is housed directly below the vents situated on the top of the outer casing, along with the actual chip package itself. The fan draws in cool air from the top of the console and then blows out heated air through the sides, dissipating the heat far more efficiently than previous models were able to do.

Other than the brand new combo chip package, the motherboard has also seen a complete re-design looking a lot more streamlined than before. Much of the excess fat has been cut, and components that were no longer needed have been cut away leaving a less cluttered design behind. Again, less stuff needed to be powered equals less overall heat, so there are less likely to be any issues of additional components creating heating issues in such an enclosed pace.

One thing that does appear to be the same as in the previous Jasper model 360, is the use of those 1 Gbit Samsung DDR3 RAM chips for the system’s unified memory. With a complete revision to the CPU and GPU, along with a streamlined motherboard, one might have also expected some kind of revised memory system as well. That doesn’t appear to be the case, and although two GDDR5 sticks would be preferable, Microsoft would then have needed to replace the existing memory controller as well. Plus at this point the use of GDDR5 isn’t at all feasible with low production numbers, and the actual cost saving using the new chips might not actually be that much cheaper, if at all at present.

Perhaps just a little too much work for minimal results, especially when it really isn’t needed as the new unit already draws far less power than before. Plus, it’s likely that MS will be making a large cost saving once these fabs ramp up production of the new components found inside the console.


Moving on, unlike previously speculated the 360 slim doesn’t have a built-in internal hard drive. Instead the HDD whilst technically being internal, is also completely removable and is housed inside a custom casing created by MS, which then lives inside the back of the machine. The new HDD being used is a Hitachi HTS545025B9SA00 1.5Gbps SATA hard drive, running at a speed of 5400RPM with an 8MB buffer.

Seeing as the new HDD connects via a standard SATA port it might be possible to hook up larger capacity drives to the console, either by swapping out the hard drive from inside the MS casing, or by simply connecting one externally via the SATA port. So far no one has tried this just yet, but the modding potential is definitely there for those of you out there who are skilled enough to do so.

Once again the system’s power supply is external. As we found no evidence of it being internal in our report on the motherboard back in march, that isn’t really so surprising, and given the cooling problems of previous units probably for the best. Thankfully though the PSU is much smaller than before, and is more stylish looking too – smooth curves and all. Well, it is as stylish as a PSU can be.


Lastly, and we though this was worth a recap over our initial reveal of the unit, is the inclusion of an input for connectivity with Kinect situated above the Ethernet port. This port both powers the Kinect device along with interfacing it with the 360 console for data transfer, and processing on the 360’s end. Users of any older model 360 will have run two separate cables in order to use the Kinect; One which plugs into a USB port on the 360 to interface with the unit, and another from the Kinect going into the plug socket in order to power the device.

Clear signs point to a 360 + Kinect bundle at some point, and the motherboard and overall design for the slim console shows that this was factored into it.

Overall, Microsoft has done well in creating a streamlined and power efficient revision of the 360 console. What we have here is a rather good combination of chip/die shrinks with improved cooling and heat dissipation, meaning we should see far less in the way of hardware failures, and of course high-levels of operating noise. It’s a nicely engineered piece of kit, both internally and externally, that finally presents the format as a premium product very much in same vein as the PS3.

The brand new 360 Slim hits retailers on July 16th in the UK, with most retailers now taking preorders for the console. It is priced at £199.99, the same as the current Elite model it replaces, which along with the Arcade SKU will see a price drop the same day the slim is released.

IQGamer will of course be bringing you our hands-on with the new unit as soon as possible, hopefully right around the time of launch, or very soon after.

Microsoft Announces 360 Slim

Earlier today at their pre-E3 press conference in LA Microsoft officially unveiled a brand new version of the 360 console, marking an end to leaked motherboard photos and numerous unconfirmed reports of its existence.


The 360 Slim is a smaller, shorter, and quieter redesign of the current Super Elite model, boasting a 250gb hard drive, built-in 802.11n Wi-Fi adaptor, extra USB ports, a separate optical output for surround sound users, and a port for hooking up the Kinect motion sensor.

Compared to current models of 360 the slim features a shiny gloss black finish with chrome highlights, and also has touch sensitive buttons much like the original chunky PS3’s. Internal revisions to the hardware are obviously present, with a shrunk down CPU/GPU combo and one single fan responsible for cooling the unit, resulting in the console being "whisper quiet" according to Microsoft.

Retailers in the US are expecting to receive stock of the new console later on this week for immediate sale, whilst Europe is said to be getting the machine on 16th July.

We shall be providing a more comprehensive look at the hardware later on this week after the mayhem of E3 has subsided.

'Project Natal' Evolves Into Kinect

At last year’s E3, Microsoft gave us a tantalising glimpse at their entry into the world of motion control gaming with ‘Project Natal’, a control system which foregoes the actual use of a physical controller and instead places you, the user, as way of directly manipulating the action on-screen. The demos for the unit showed members of the associated press and readers alike just how much further the concept of motion could be pushed, taking the game literally into the living room. Finally that concept has been given a name.

Last night at their Cirque-du-Soleil event in Los Angeles Microsoft pulled back the curtain on ‘Project Natal’, revealing the final name for the device as the ‘Kinect’ referencing both motion and the idea of bringing people together for new gameplay experiences. They also showed off the final ‘Kenect’ hardware, which looked smaller, and slightly sleeker than the early prototypes demonstrated at previous events.


A list of titles for the ‘Kinect’ was announced, with games varying from family sports titles, a multi-game action title, a racing game, and a virtual pet simulator of sorts.

First was Kinect Sports, in which MS showed off bowling, tack and field, soccer, and volleyball. It appears to be direct competitor to Nintendo’s Wii Sports, but somewhat more advanced, although not always completely accurate with some journos sighting a lack of 1:1 movement and lag as the main cause.

Next up Kinect Adventures. This looks to be a compilation of on-rails action mini-games, and both a rafting game and mine-cart ride were shown. The aim of the title appears to be collecting various goodies by reaching out to grab them whilst maintaining the speed of the raft or cart. Jumping speeds up the raft, and at certain points in either game players have to strike a pose for the camera adding to the fun.

Kinectimals is the resident virtual pet game for the device, featuring an array of big cats instead of cute little pooches and bizarre fictional critters. Users were able to pet and play with the on-screen cats, along with trying to teach them tricks and throwing them a ball. It looks like a glorified Nintendogs-meets-Invisimals from what I can see, definitely something that could catch on with younger gamers.

Kinect Yoga & Tai Chi was Microsoft’s answer to Nintendo’s Wii fit. The demo shown saw an avatar guiding you through how to do certain moves, and an outline of yourself next to it demonstrated how well you were doing. From what we’ve heard, the Kinect’s full body tracking will allow far more precision in the game’s monitoring of your movements compared what is available with the Wii fit and balance board, although only a sample of stuff was shown.

Joy Ride was the obligatory racing game, though apparently one of the least impressive of all the titles showcased. A simple arcade racer, you hold your hands out like you would when holding and real steering wheel and turn them to move left and right. Leaning in either direction pulls off a powerslide of sorts, and waving your arms around makes you do tricks.

Dance Central: Self-explanatory really. The game uses the camera to track your moves as you attempt to follow the prompts on-screen.

By far the most interesting title revealed though (and the one likely to be most wanted by hardcore gamers at the event) was non-other than a compatible Star Wars game.

Kinect: Star Wars visually looks much like the Clone Wars CG series aired on Sky, and is an on-rails light sabre battling experience. The player looks to be moved around on-screen automatically whilst they wave their arms around to perform Light Sabre slashes, (blaster shots can be repelled like in the films) and can use force powers by thrusting their hands back and forth. The demo ends in a cool duel against lead villain Darth Vader.

Outside of compatible games, Microsoft also revealed a brand new Dashboard interface that used the ‘Kinect’. Various applications such as Facebook, Twitter and a program that allowed both photo sharing and video chat with friends were shown. Icons on-screen showing the different programs could be selected by simply pointing at them, and control once in the selected program was handled using motion and gestures with the ‘Kinect’

Lastly, Microsoft’s Kudo Tsunoda announced that the ‘Kinect’, along with six separate software titles would see a release on 4th November in the US with a worldwide launch thereafter. No indications of pricing structure or a hardware and software pack were revealed, with such information likely to be forthcoming closer to launch.

New Mortal Kombat Game Announced!

Following up on yesterday’s news that a potentially brand new Mortal Kombat movie could well be in the works, comes an official announcement of a completely new game in the franchise. Coming to both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 sometime next year is the currently self-titled ‘Mortal Kombat’, a game that delves deep within the series roots hoping to deliver the MK experience that fans have been waiting for since Midway threw out the rulebook with ‘Deadly Alliance’.


‘Mortal Kombat’ will feature a brand new graphics engine, an art style looking to continue right after MK4 left off - with some elements of later games, gruesome fatalities, and a complete overhaul of the classic 2D gameplay the series is known for. A deep and comprehensive story is promised, along with a cool 2 vs 2, 4-player tag team mode in which players battle it out in teams much like Marvel Vs Capcom.

Series co-creator Ed Boon excitedly stated: "We can't wait for players to get their hands on Mortal Kombat," and added "This game really is a response to what players have been demanding: mature presentation, reinvented 2D fighting mechanic and the best, most gruesome fatalities ever!"


Despite the IP being purchased by Warner Bros last year, ED Boon and the rest of the series flagship development team remain at the helm with the newly re-named NetherRealm studios.

Martin Tremblay, President, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment commented: "We are bringing the Mortal Kombat franchise back to gamers with the talented NetherRealm Studios team creating the game fans long to play," also adding "Re-establishing the brand with Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Mortal Kombat innovates on past games while staying true to the brand's legendary characters and fighting style."


A trailer for the game was released to go along with today’s announcement, and by all accounts the game is looking pretty damn good. Faithful, authentic, these aren’t the words associated with ‘Mortal’ and ‘Kombat’ in recent years, but all this looks to change.

We’ll be sure to follow this one closely.

Tech Analysis: Split Second (360 vs PS3)

Earlier on today we posted up our technical analysis of BlackRock Studio’s Split Second. However it was brought to our attention that there was a mistake in our original article, which stated that the PS3 version of the game didn’t have any kind of anti-aliasing, when it did in fact have 2xMSAA just like the 360 version. Our reasoning behind this was the PS3 version's constant jagged lines made it look awfully like there was no AA. Although in hindsight the high contrast nature the game is actually the cause of the issue, creating problems for the MSAA in generating good enough samples for the anti-aliasing to work.

We did pick up on this in our original article (highlighted in bold)with regards to the 360 game, and it is still featured below in our updated version, but failed to spot this as the cause in the PS3 version. Despite this, in light of the above information, it doesn't change our initial feeling towards either version in any way.

We appologise for any mistakes and do try our best to maintain absolute accuracy in all the content we provide. However we are only human, and even the best of us can at times make the occasional error. What follows below is our updated and re-published article.

When BlackRock Studios first unleashed the critically praised pure onto consoles last year, it was a shining example of just how to approach multi-platform development. Highly optimised for both platforms strengths and weaknesses, it was largely identical, with only subtle differences between them, barely noticeable unless both versions were running side by side.

For Split Second the fine team at BlackRock seem to have done an almost equally stellar job, with the concessions made for each platform being remarkably low, and the differences again being hardly visible in motion, apart from perhaps the PS3 version's seemingly less successful use of AA and the 360's slightly blurred image.

Surprisingly, it is the PS3 that appears initially to get the arguably superior version this time around, on paper at least. Further inspection shows however, that things might not be so clear-cut. Whilst the PS3 build is in fact the sharpest, it also has some dialled back post processing effects and what appears to be only very little in the way of jaggies reduction through the use of MSAA.

In a game like Split Second - where high contrasting edges are everywhere - the 360’s use of AA isn’t as perfect as we’d like it to be either, with jaggies regularly appearing at certain points, although not to the extent of the PS3 version. But it’s eradication of more jagged lines does make a difference during gameplay, though not enough to make any version an initially clear winner.

So that’s the gist of it. Now, lets delve into those all-important details as we take a closer look at both versions of the game.


In terms of rendering resolution it’s the PS3 build that takes the lead with its crisp and clear 720p display. It’s a full 1280x720 on the Sony platform, and 1280x672 for the 360 game. Both seem to use the standard issue 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) that is commonplace in most titles on MS’s machine, although its inclusion in the PS3 build doesn’t do much to reduce aliasing.

From the screenshots on this page it’s pretty clear that the PS3 build is shaper overall than the 360 one. However the reason behind this isn’t quite so straightforward as you might think. Obviously the 360 build’s lower 672 resolution does have an impact on how sharp the final image will be, although as we’ve seen before with Splinter Cell and to a much lesser extent with Alan Wake, that an upscaled image can still look rather clean and artifact free. And with BlackRock’s latest that certainly seems to be the case, being pretty sharp in motion.

The upscaling appears to be rather good, and only a small amount of softness seems to come from this process. It can be pretty hard to tell though, as the game features heavy usage of a screen blurring post process effect which distorts the entire image. Thankfully we can still see that regardless of post processing, that the overall composition of the image is still superior in terms of raw sharpness in the PS3 build.

Unfortunately this raw sharpness coupled with what looks like no anti-aliasing in motion - due to the lack of good samples being available to the MSAA, largely because of the game featuring constantly high contrasting edges throughout - simply heightens the game’s already visible jagged lines, with the PS3 version crawling in shimmering edges. The 360 on the other hand, handles this a little better with it’s combined use of MSAA, greater amount of post processing, and from the extra blur added by the upscaling process, in which the overall result is a smoother final image despite the small vertical upscale taking place.

This is particularly noticeable during gameplay as the PS3 build’s constant edge shimmering make it just a little bit harder to read the road up ahead when things get chaotic. By contrast, the cleaner 360 game allows you to see small details coming up ahead without the screen crawling in as many aliasing atifacts, though they are a little blurrier than on the PS3.

Despite this issue both versions are equally playable, and at times the 360 version is no stranger to these effects, though they manifest themselves less frequently which is definitely a plus.


What about the game in motion then? Well, both versions run at thirty frames per-second (30fps) for the most part, with both slowing down on occasion in certain situations – usually when powersliding around a corner whilst all hell is breaking loose. Like with Pure both versions are remarkably similar and very solid at maintaining their framerates. Both seem to be v-synced, and suffer from only minor frame drops.

The 360 build seems keep up with the demands of the action slightly better than the PS3 one, although the difference is tiny with it rarely dipping below the intended 30fps target, and only occasionally loosing the odd frame to screen tearing. PS3 owners get a version that is mostly identical with very few drops in framerate - just a little more than the 360 - but this barely impacts in any meaningful way during gameplay, still providing a solidly smooth experience for the vast majority of the time.

Whilst both versions seem to be v-synced, I did notice that the PS3 game would tear the occasional frame more often in stressful situations compared to the 360 one, although this difference is very hard to detect by eye, requiring you to be looking out for it. The small amount of screen tear on ether version is only visible for a fraction of a second, and only appears right at the top of the screen, so it isn’t particularly noticeable at all.

In the end both versions perform excellently, with each one rarely dropping framerate for more than a second or so, and the tearing that arises in either build is barely worth mentioning. BlackRock have basically achieved parity across both platforms with any differences being purely un-intrusive and not detrimental to the game in any way.


Texture filtering and detail is like for like across both platforms, as is the modelling and general shader effects. Most alpha effects and particles seem to be rendered in the same resolution on both platforms, with the PS3 getting an equally high-end experience with regards to the games often impressive visuals – especially the lighting which looks incredible when in full bloom. Some smoke and flame effects look slightly lower on PS3, but it's hard to notice when playing the game.

Post processing is another matter, in which it is clear that the effect has been dialled back slightly on the PS3 game. You can see this in the shot below where the 360 game features what looks like a slightly stronger blur-styled effect over the PS3 one.

It’s this effect in tandem with the lower 672 resolution, that gives the 360 build a clear loss in sharpness, but also a greater reduction in jaggies than what 2xMSAA would usually provide. However, there is also a strong case for the PS3 build and the sharper overall display it provides, although the differences are less apparent in motion than they are in still screens.


Overall, BlackRock have done a mostly excellent job in maintaining platform parity to the point where there really isn’t all that much in it.

The PS3 definitely benefits from having a slightly higher vertical resolution and the shaper display it provides. From a raw technical perspective is arguably superior, but then again, the 360 version features less jagged lines due to both the use of anti-aliasing combined with the slightly greater post processing effects over the PS3. The upscaled nature of the game may also help in this regard, with the slight blur adding more AA in areas in which the MSAA would usually fail.

Either way both versions perform smoothly with very little in the way of framerate drops or troublesome screen tear, and the differences in screen composition when the game is in motion are not as apparent as they are in still screens. Certainly, I'd say that most people will be satisfied whichever version they decide to go for.

It’s tit for tat, and given the choice I would probably take the 360 game with its reduced amount of jagged edges, along with a controller that is more suited to racing games if I absolutely had to pick - although I do prefer the sharpness of the PS3 version, and the higher resolution overall.

So in conclusion, Split Second is solid on both systems with your choice most likely coming down to which controller you prefer using, or which online network all your friends will be playing on. BlackRock’s latest is a good example of balanced multi-platform development, and where the differences between each version isn’t at all detrimental to the experience.