Tech Analysis: Bulletstorm Demo (360)

We've been performing our in-depth tech analyses for around a year now, covering some impressive multiplatform conversions, such as the superbly handled Vanquish, to the extremely poor Mafia II. But our look at Bulletstorm is a little different.

Previously, for all our tech-based features we relied on various screen grabs posted by various forum members and by two rather generous German sites (Cynamite.de and Videogameszone.de). While this worked out very well - and indeed continues to do so - it does limit just what we can cover and how we can cover it. This means that we often couldn't perform anaylsis on specific points of interest, nor could we back up some of our findings with a decent image of what we are seeing.

Bulletstorm marks the first game using actual capturing equipment, grabbing lossesly-compressed gameplay along with pixel-perfect HDMI screenshots. As expected, with Blogger's limiting 1GB image hosting allowance, all shots will be compressed down in order to save on space. Plus, videos, when we start using them , will unfortunately be reduced in quality to enable decent YouTube playback in 720p.

Still, it's a start. And there's more to come once I've sorted out a string of issues, all of which have sabotaged short-term plans for a few other features in the pipeline. But take this as a test.

Also, seeing as I've got some serious issues with my HDCP decrypter box, I've been unable to capture any PS3 gameplay footage or screenshots. So, in that case, rather than go head-to-head, today we're going to be looking at the make-up of Bulletstorm's engine, and just how much of it, if anything at all, has been tailored for cross-platform, PS3 and 360 optimisation.

But without further ado, lets get on with our look at the game, high-quality screengrabs in tow, but minus any gameplay video montages.


Starting off, without any pixel counting, Bulletstorm appears to be rendering in 720p on the 360 without any form of anti-aliasing. So, as expected there is plenty of edge shimmering and sub-pixel artefacts to be found - at times the screen can literally crawl with jaggies. This can clearly be seen in the high contrast portions of the game, demonstrated perfectly in the shots taken from the demos's opening segment below.

Seeing as the AA resolve is performed near the begging of the rendering cycle in UE3, when MSAA is present it normally only manifests itself on certain edges in some scenes. Or, as some titles, such as Gears Of War demonstrates, only in static scenes specifically. With that being the case, there's little point in actually including it - the additional memory bandwidth and GPU cycles saved, could be spared for other tasks.


By and large, most of the time when dealing with UE3 games on PS3 we find that getting the engine up to the standard of the 360 build, even getting it running smoothly, is more often than not an afterthought. For every Mass Effect 2 or Singularity, we have a Bioshock 2, whereby various cuts have been made in order to accommodate reduced levels of memory bandwidth and lower vertex shading throughput of the console’s RSX GPU.

Occasionally, developers will choose to pair back the 360 build in order to gain a matching performance on PS3, optimising their code and asset quality so that it favours both systems, rather than just the one. And that's exactly what is apparent with Bulletstorm. While performance isn't a complete match - the PS3 version has slightly more slowdown - we can see that many concessions have been made (on the 360 and on the PS3) in order to accommodate the game's real-time lighting and shadowing system, along with attempting to maintain parity across both platforms.


Take the game's use of texture mapping for a second. Here we have a distinct mixture of clearly normal mapped surfaces in combination with many flat looking areas that go without. Normal mapping has been used efficiently, but also sparingly compared to the likes of, say, Gears Of War.

At the same time, actual texture detail and resolution is decidedly a mixed bag of sorts. Bulletstorm uses a range of low and mid-res assets, with many surfaces featuring some very poor looking textures from a distance, but up close descending even further into blurriness. It seems that the most detailed art-assets in the game, are the ones which are used on key normal-mapped surfaces; more detail, plus depth and resolution.


You can't fail to notice this in motion, and in still screens the various cutbacks stick out like a sore thumb. There is also a lack of AF (anisotropic filtering) present. The game favours the more traditional, and far less performance heavy - on the 360 at least - bilinear approach to filtering.

That said, the fast-paced nature of the game, keeping you constantly moving, always in the flow of hectic and heavy combat, yearning for you to make that next 'killshot', means that this isn't something you'll care to spend time complaining about. In Bulletstorm’s case, it's all about comboing up various killing techniques, from lassoing an enemy from across the screen, before grenading him into oblivion, or delivering a quick kick to head, gunning them down afterwards.



On the one hand, the use of lower res textures for many surfaces along with a more controlled use of normal-mapping, allows for minimum cuts being made to get the game to run in the PS3's more limiting memory confines, whilst comfortably working in 360's fast EDRAM bandwidth. But on the other, it also allows the developers to break free of the Unreal Engine's historic lineage to using pre-backed lighting techniques.

While the UE3 is suitably based around handling lots of pre-backed lit and shadowed environments, it slows down considerably when graced with plentiful amounts of real-time calculations. For those who aren't aware, shadows calculated on the fly, in particular eat up copious amounts of bandwidth used for alpha-channel effects: lots of transparencies equals lots of bandwidth heavy alpha. So, to that end, the more memory saved by chopping back on normal mapping and higher res textures, plus alpha effects res, the more that’s left for other things such as this.




As a result, we see that People Can Fly's latest features a real-time lighting and shadowing implementation, going beyond the pre-backed elements found in Epic's own triple-a titles. And the result is very impressive indeed. Whilst not quite measuring up to Crysis 2's level of accuracy - it's not GI - it's still instantly apparent in how much it improves the overall look of the game.

As you can see in the shots above, and later on this page, both gunfire and your electric whip light up both the environment and the characters contained within. Light is also reflected from the muzzle flash of your gun, back onto your gun itself.



In addition, the surrounding lighting and shadowing composition of the environment also lights and shades your gun accordingly. In Bulletstorm this isn't simply a case of darkening an object at one end, and lightening it on the other; the changes are wholly dynamic in nature, whereby different parts of an object is lit up according to the affecting light source, and of course the shade present in the environment.

The change from pre-backed to a real-time solution - although, it does look like some pre-calculating is still being done in places - basically allows the artwork to not only stand out more, but it also adds some additional depth to the scene. HDR in particular, in combination with the low to high transition, helps with this.



All this comes at a price however, and as a result we can see further tweaks and changes made to the game to accommodate the lighting solution. The alpha buffers, for example are rendered in a lower resolution, thus saving on memory bandwidth needed for things such as real-time shadows. This compromise also ensures a more comfortable transition to the PS3, whereby alpha effects are usually downgraded in resolution to work in more restricted memory environment.

Smoke, fire and particles are all rendered in a lower-res. However, this is barely noticeable in motion, when playing from a reasonable distance on your HDTV - say, about 6ft from a 32" LCD in my case. In addition, all effects have been adequately filtered, meaning that no aliasing is present. The differing layers of 2D sprites which make up such things are also blended nicely - much like in KZ3, although they do look noticeably flatter here.


In terms of performance, Bulletstorm runs at a smooth 30fps for most of the time, only slowing down mildly when the load increases beyond what the engine can cope with. Usually having several enemies on screen at once, along with a few explosions usually is the root cause. But this rarely happens for long periods, nor are the drops severe in nature.

Some people have also posted claims that the game is actually running at a higher framerate than 30fps, as it appears to run very smoothly indeed compared to a number of other 30fps titles. However, this isn't the case at all. Without any equipment to measure this observation, other means of testing are required.

All I did to confirm the 30fps update, was to look down at the floor whilst running forward, before aiming back up to the horizon again whilst moving. Doing this, whilst very un-scientific, allows you to see the characteristic features of a 30fps update - when looking down the lower refresh is obvious - but as you aim upwards and back to the default position, you can see that fluidity does not increase - it's wholly perceptual, and not I might add an actual change in real-world smoothness.

The game also looks like it is v-synced, with tearing only occurring when the engine struggles to cope with rendering the next frame in time. Rather than drop frames, the developers have chosen to disengage v-sync instead, thus maintaining a higher screen refresh rather than drop down to 20fps for short extended periods when the screen is awash with enemies and particles.

You can clearly see this above, in the mid-part of the first section of the demo. Here, the explosion of alpha heavy particles, fire effects, and amount of enemies on screen put the engine under stress. As a result we see a drop in framerate, but also the loss of v-sync as the engine attempts to preserve overall smoothness at the expense of having clean frames displayed.

Outside of these admittedly small blips, Bulletstorm is very solid in this regard. And in terms of what framerate drops and torn frames there are, they represent a very small part of the overall experience whilst playing. In addition while we are just covering the 360 demo, we can also say that the PS3 build looks to be very much the same, being mildly behind the 360 game when stacked up against it.


Back to the graphical make up of the game itself, and we can see a range of further cuts and improvements.

The amount of specularity present in most titles using the UE3 has been paired backed considerably, with less in the way of surfaces that features an overly shiny appearance. Plus, objects that are reasonably far away, but still pretty close when viewed from certain parts of the environment, are displayed as what looks like flat 2D sprites, with on occasion some flat, textured geometry being used instead.



By contrast, we also see the inclusion of a very convincing depth of field blur effect, used to focus your eyes onto the enemies and environment, and away from your weapon. Also, not all effects are rendered in quite as low resolution of the smoke and fire. The lighting from your electric whip looks to be full-res, or at least pretty close to, as does the electric particles that come flying off when used. Whereas, on the other hand, any smoke given off is obviously of a lower quality.



But overall, by the look of things, it's pretty clear that with Bulletstorm the dev team have balanced out the overall load accordingly, speccing out a range of tangible improvements - such as real-time lighting and shadowing - along with a few well-considered downgrades - texture resolution, reduced normal mapped surfaces etc. The use of a combination of low and high-res effects also point towards a firm commitment towards a multiplatform approach to development, while benefiting the game in terms of allowing a more advanced lighting scheme to be used.

At 720p with no AA, the game’s framebuffer comfortably fits into the 360's EDRAM - yet another consideration - while the other memory saving techniques makes the game well-suited for running on the PS3 'as is' without the need to really pair it back any further. That said, I haven't looked at the PS3 build in-depth, in full detail just yet. Although, it does look nigh-on identical, if not so, with lighting being the same, and only a slight difference in performance separating them.

If we get a chance, we should be taking another look at People Can Fly's latest just after release. But, with both Killzone 3 and the Dreamcast collection both incoming on the same day, there are no promises mind. That week will be all about Guerrilla Games' triple-A sequel.

So far, Bulletstorm seems to be reasonably fun, if not a potentially repetitive ride into juvenile shooter exposition. Sexual references and Duke Nukem level humour aside, it's basically what you expect from a FPS that has left its public work persona at home.

Review: Call Of Duty: Black Ops (360)

Ignoring reality, Black Ops firmly has its feet solidly in the realms of fantasy: Busting through a set of doors before busting a cap in the head of Fidel Castro is clearly a world away from such endeavours black ops units actually get up to. But then again, we never know. Certainly not with a team designated to perform operations that no upstanding military commander would authorise - at least not officially, and that is what makes Treyarch’s latest an interesting tale.

So this instalment in the award-winning Call Of Duty series once again further allows itself to be larger than life, with intense set pieces and non-stop gunfights for terrain supremacy, funnelling you along corridors in what looks like an FPS gallery shooter with firm homage’s to yet more Hollywood movies. Then again, this is exactly what Modern Warfare turned the series into. But even before, it was heavily branching down the path of arcade realism. Black Ops simply lives up to this premise. It’s here to please those grown accustom to the series trademark style, and unrelenting ballet of bullets.

It’s not that I particularly mind this forte of action. In fact I rather like it. The balance of near constant shooting, with brief pauses in between to regenerate health, commandeer a fixed-turret machine gun, or in order to quickly take a breather and assess the situation is exactly what makes this series tick. However, Black Ops also shows that the now well-worn formula works even better when combined with a more coherent storyline, and a focus on individual characters, however small, rather than being an all out mish-mash of convoluted James Bond-esque set pieces and mindless exposition.


Here, you spend most of your time in the shoes of John Mason, a Black Ops team member that now finds himself captured and being interrogated about events from past missions. Hidden behind a smoky glass window, an un-named spook attempts to extract vital parts of your service history, which are presented through various flashbacks as you succumb to the pain inflicted. These flashbacks comprise the game’s long sea of missions, taking you through Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, and back again in a heightened Cold War era tale of misinformation and distrust.

Essentially, through these flashbacks Black Ops tracks your progress taking part in everything from the apparent assassination of Castro, and discovery of a chemical weapon – the potent never gas, Nova 6 – right the way through to hunting down the Russia generals and Ex Nazi commander responsible for the new terrorist threat.

At first the story seems somewhat disjointed, almost feeling dazed and confused like John Mason in the chair he finds himself strapped down to. However, as more of Mason’s memories come flooding back to the surface, and as the elaborate tale unfolds as a whole, everything becomes clear as day, with Black Ops keeping you gripped with its focus on giving away brief snippets of information via short and snappy cut-scenes.


To that end the single player campaign is a more tightly reigned in affair compared to MW2, with emphasis on big budget Michael Bay style set pieces, and a near constant barrage of action. It is never quite as overdone as some of the things found in Infinity Ward’s last COD title, with the larger events feeling more realistic in a warped sense of the word. Plus, the game tries to keep a balance between the large explosive encounters and quieter missions that are based around stealth or a brief moment of tactical combat.

Outside of these ebb and flow elements to the action, the straight forward shooting is broken up even more with several vehicle sections whereby you take control of helicopters, boats, and a tank in bringing about some stylised destruction. What’s cool about these, is that some have been deliberately influenced, and dare I say, going as far as ripping off various Vietnam flicks of the past thirty years of so with the use of licensed soundtracks and iconic confrontations – it all makes the fictional story, and the combat more natural when compared to some of things the series has thrown at you before (the nuke in COD4 anyone?).


Black Ops also takes the time to stretch out the battlefield even further than before, providing players with larger, more open spaces in which to take part in elaborate battles that have to be handled a little differently. Like with the rest of the game, there are always a few carefully orchestrated set pieces to be found amongst the endless amounts of enemies to kill.

However polished most of the action is throughout – and it is a superb, well-constructed affair - Treyarch don’t always seem to get it right all the time. And in too many of these open battlefield sections the old case of respawning enemies rears its ugly head once again. Ultimately, there’s little you can do other than to shoot down a few them before making a run for it to the next checkpoint, thus stopping the endless flow of potential cannon fodder.


The first Vietnam stage is home to the most obvious, and easily the worse implementation of this in the entire game, whereby, as you are making your way down an embankment to the trenches below over the horizon literally dozens of enemies continuously head your way. Sure, you can push over a few barraels and set them alight to keep odds stacked in your favour. But if you don’t… its run and gun until you reach the next section.

This is perhaps the main difference between Black Ops and Modern Warefare 2 – other than having a more succinct and character driven narrative – in which the game feels like its relying on an old, thoroughly worn out tactic to deliver a challenge that could’ve been handled far more intelligently. It’s no deal breaker. And other than a few short spells of frustration here and there, the campaign is handled with a lot more reserve and direction than expected.


Black Ops’ single player expedition through the cold war era is firmly solid and handled with minute precision. Cool touches like licensed music and the inclusion of real life figures such as president John F Kennedy add weight to the proceedings, whilst the gameplay is cut from the same cloth as previous Call Of Duty’s, almost feeling a little too comfortable in its own skin.

As you’ve probably guessed, progression isn’t a word Black Ops understands, nor heeds to at this point. But then again it doesn’t really need to, not when the overall game is as polished as it is. The gameplay, although tried and tested, perhaps even a little stale, is still as involving as ever, and the more focused nature of the campaign helps it shine through any excursions of monotony. As Modern Warfare 2 demonstrated: being bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. And this is one cliché that Black Ops thankfully manages to avoid.

Like with all Call Of Duty titles though, the campaign is just for starters. It could be argued that the multiplayer – especially online – is firmly on the charge, delivering an automatic spray of replay value well after the cold war conflict of the single player outing has happily exhausted its supply of conscripts. Black Ops then, doesn’t disappoint. With a range of inspired new game modes, and a return of World At War’s fanatically popular ‘Zombies’ Treyarch again have shown command of a franchise they originally were criticised for taking the reins of.


It’s no surprise then to learn that online and multiplayer is exactly where the franchise has taken its biggest steps forward. New modes, and a currency system of sorts expands and complements COD’s trademark use of perks and the established procedure of ranking up as you play, with the ability for greater levels of customisation amongst players whilst adding variety in an increasingly familiar environment.

The use of the new COD points for one, allows you to purchase weapons, clothes, and abilities in the form of perks instead of simply ranking up to get such items. Interestingly this adds a lot more variety to the proceedings without the expense of making the experience feel un-balanced. It’s pretty coo to gain new things more quickly, rather than having to battle it out in endless online matches in order to rank up to do so.

You can even gamble away these points in a series of free-for-all modes called Wager Matches, in which a variety of game types are available. Highlights include One in the Chamber, whereby each player is only given a pistol with one bullet, a knife, and three lives, and Gun Game, in which players start off with a pistol and are given a new weapon with each kill. Getting knifed gives you back the previous weapon, while getting a new one means that you’ll have to quickly adapt to using weapons you may not be very adept at using.


Also as mentioned earlier the Zombies mode from COD: World At War makes its riumpant return, but this time is expanded upom with several maps, and the ability to play as either of John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, and Fidel Castro while battling Zombies in The Pentagon, which is pretty cool to say the least. Four players can play online in co-op, whilst there is the legacy two-player split screen option for those who want to be in a room with ‘real’ people.

If there’s anything to complain about, it’s that the game’s matchmaking service is a little slow, and the online co-op campaign of WAW is strangely absent. Besides that Black Ops takes some large strides forward in delivering the deepest, most satisfying range of multiplayer modes to date. The combination of perks, rankings, with COD points and a range of excitingly geniuos new modes helps keep it right up there along with the awesomeness that was the original Modern Warfare online.


Unusual as it first may seem, it appears that Call Of Duty Black Ops well and truly does deliver. There is always a risk of creating an instalment that fails to differentiate itself enough from past games, or one which strays a little two far from the crows nest. However, Black Ops does neither. Instead, it balances a fine line with a single-player campaign that simply treads old ground in a more coherent manner, and a multiplayer in which it mixes up the familiar helping to keep it exciting.

And overall, as complete package there’s simply no doubt that Treyarch have done a reasonably stellar job here. The level of polish, and expertly crafted, fast-paced, visceral action takes a page right out of the Infinity Ward rulebook, but doing it better than MW2, and with even more style. It can be said with confidence that the studio should no longer be looked at under the cloud of IW’s past successes, but instead as a solid team on their own, with their own take of what Call Of Duty should be.

VERDICT: 8/10

Tech Analysis: Vanquish Update (PS3 vs 360)

Created by both the legendary Shinji Mikami, and the visionary Atsushi Inaba, Vanquish is one of the most exciting and intense shooters to come out of any software house in recent years. Although, it is only from the minds, and indeed talent, nurtured in the land of the rising sun in which such an exemplary form of high-octane, and beautifully staged gunplay could have originated. Coming out of nowhere Vanquish is an amazing game, and one of the most impressively modern, though staunchly old-school examples of run and gun mayhem you’ll find on any console, let alone the PS3 or 360, and is well worth the price of entry.

The demo release way back in August showed that Vanquish was more or less a match on both PS3 and 360, but the finished game now solidly confirms that. Like with the demo Vanquish looks to be almost completely identical across both platforms, having just one or two extremely subtle, but barely noticeable differences, with performance being the most defining factor between both versions.

What we have here is a stark contrast to Platinum Games last release, Bayonetta, which was seriously gimped on the PS3. Running with its framerate bitterly halved, along with lower resolution textures and alpha effects it was perhaps one of the worst cross-platform releases I’d come across thus far. But unlike that particular title, Vanquish was completely developed in-house on both platforms, with the PS3 game being the lead platform.

We took an in-depth look at the demo in an earlier tech analysis, so there’s little reason to spend a huge amount of time re-treading old ground, seeing as pretty much most of our findings back then still ring true now when it comes to the final retail copy. Instead what follows is a recap of sorts with updated comparison shots and an extended look at performance across both formats – arguably the deciding factor when it comes to Platinum Games’ latest.



Vanquish comes to both PS3 and 360 with a high contrast, heavily stylised look rendering at 1024x720, and with 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing). Sharpness is like for like, and polygon edges are reasonably clean given the circumstances, with jaggies mostly being kept successfully under control despite the high contrast nature of the game – due no doubt to the title’s extensive use of post-process, per-object motion blur in addition the standard MSAA implementation.

However, the game does appear a little soft in places due to the slight sub-HD framebuffer being upscaled to 720p on both consoles. Although this never manifests itself in any meaningful way, and the overall look is still that of being mostly sharp and clinical despite the amount of screen-distorting effects on offer.

Given the huge amount of stuff being rendered on screen at once; plenty of particles, transparencies, and geometry, it is surprising to see that absolutely nothing has been paired back on either build of the game. Alpha buffers are rendered in full resolution, and both texture detail and filtering are an exact match across both platforms, with tons of beautiful shader effects adorning the display. The fact that the developers have been able to almost reach 720p in its entirety (1280x720) is impressive to say the least.

The use of a 1024x720 resolution framebuffer with 2xMSAA means that the game’s graphical make-up on a frame-by-frame basis manages to work comfortably with both systems differing memory bandwidth limitations – on the 360 in particular the FB fits into the system’s EDRAM without tiling, while PS3 owners get something that isn’t too bandwidth heavy overall. The result of which is basically image parity on both platforms, with only some shadowing quirks and mild gamma differences.



Of course such oddities are hardly justifiable as plus or minus points against each version. Shadowing has slightly different implementations on each platform, with occasional differences here and there, though in motion they look basically the same. This was also apparent in the Enslaved demo we sampled a few weeks back for an another tech analysis, and like with that particular title, in Vanquish it barely impacts on the overall look of the game.

There also seems to some small gamma differences between the two versions. Contrast seems to be slightly boosted, and brightness reduced on the PS3 giving some textures a mildly more washed out look, along with darker shadowing. Detail levels remain the same however, and a quick, and very slight re-calibration of my TV's video settings then yielded near identical results.



One thing that stands out as much in the final game as it did in the demo, is the title’s use of a range of screen-distortion effects and per-object motion blur. Individual parts of the scenery, along with enemies and projectiles become warped and blurred with fast movement and large explosions, in what can only be described as a bonanza of post-processing goodness.

Like with pretty much the rest of the game, both the PS3 and 360 versions are the same in this regard, with levels of post processing effects usually only found in either high-end PS3 specific titles, or in the PC space where technology is always rapidly moving ahead of the consoles. It’s an impressive feat to behold, especially given the demanding circumstances the game engine regularly finds itself in.

Interestingly, the use of motion blur actually helps in making the game seem smoother than it actually is. In Vanquish blur is used not only to distort images on screen, but also to simulate (if not accidentally) a smoothening effect, though without any artificial framerate enhancement.

The Force Unlreashed II demo demonstrates this perfectly, often feeling smoother and more fluid than a 30fps game, and the same thing can be found here in Vanquish as well. The result is that even when performance takes a brief nosedive, it never quite looks quite as bad as it sometimes feels, which I guess is actually a good thing because Vanquish running at 60fps would be an impossible feat.



So far things have been pretty much identical across both platforms, sans for some shadowing/lighting quirks, both of which are barely even noticeable. Instead, what actually separates the two builds apart from each other is performance, in which we see the PS3 command an overall lead, with no screen tearing, and mix of fewer and heavier framerate drops than its 360 counterpart.

Effectively, overall performance between both versions of the game is exactly the same as in the demo. The first section of the final game IS basically the demo, but briefly expanded upon both at the beginning and at the end. In which case we can see that the same scenario displays the same results as our earlier findings; that the PS3 version tends to drop framerate a little more during the large-scale boss encounter, whilst doing so less often during regularly combat situations.

Moving on past the first mission and into further stages of the game, and we can find largely the same results yet again. Sadly, I don’t have any hard way of confirming actual framerates outside of using my own eyes, but it does appear that the 360 build has a small advantage during most of the game’s boss battles, though admittedly I’ve not played both versions all the way through to completion.

Vanquish targets a 30fps update, and manages to successfully maintain that with only a few dips in between, and some heavy drops when the engine is stressed. Most notably the PS3 version seems to be ever so slightly smoother in normal circumstances, whereas the 360 drops the odd few frames more. Though it has to be said that the differences aren’t earth shattering, barely registering at all when immersed in the action. However the PS3 build does feel ever so slightly more fluid as a whole.



So framerates are basically very similar, with one platform ever so slightly favouring heavy load scenarios, and the other more regular encounters. However, in terms of dealing with screen tearing the results are remarkably different, and this appears to be down to each version’s implementations of v-sync – the 360 version happily loses it in order to keep fluidity, whilst the PS3 benefits from having additional support from being triple-buffered.

Triple buffering means that for every frame being displayed, the game renders a total of three. If the first frame is torn, then the next is selected, and so on, until a clean frame is found. Screen tearing is only really noticeable when multiple frames are torn, so by having more frames rendered for each one displayed, means that you are less likely to be using a final frame that isn’t clean.

For the PS3 it means that Vanquish never tears a single frame. Like in the demo its performance is rock solid in this regard, never faltering even when a cataclysmic event is kicking off right in front of your eyes. By contrast the game 360 game doesn’t feature any kind of continuous v-sync, and unlike hinted at in our demo analysis, doesn’t feature any kind of frame buffer technique (as tearing was barely visible I thought that it could have used the lesser doubled buffered approach), leading to regular, though mostly unseen bouts of tearing.

However, the tearing is so mild on the 360 that it is barely noticeable at all. In fact, during play I only noticed it for a split second or so when there was lots of stuff on screen at once; a clear sign that despite the PS3 being the lead build of the game, that the 360 version is still thoroughly optimised. Instead, screen tearing mostly rears its head during the large boss battles, and rarely in normal combat.

Of course there are both advantages and downsides to either approach. The controls for instance feel a touch more responsive on the 360; a common trait found when comparing games featuring frame buffering, and those without. In order for the PS3 to maintain its stellar v-sync performance (in reality it could be dropping it) triple buffering adds an additional rendering cost into the mix. The amount of time it takes to display a frame goes up, and with it comes additional controller latency.

However, this additional latency only subtly manifests itself, and Vanquish never feels laggy or unresponsive outside of when large framerate drops occur. Interestingly, when both versions are put under strain during a boss encounter, they feel pretty much the same, with the 360 just about coming out on top overall.

Even when taking this into account, there’s no doubt that the PS3 build takes the performance lead by the smallest of margins. All things considered; framerate drops, screen tearing, controller latency, it is clear that the Sony game demonstrates a subtle advantage in most of these areas. Although, with the exception of screen tearing, both are a pretty even match, making Vanquish an enjoyable, and downright awesome experience whichever platform you happen to own.



Compared to Sega’s PS3 port of Bayonetta, Vanquish is sensational. Platinum Games have clearly balanced out the intricacies of their graphics engine with the limitations of both platforms in mind, whilst also taking advantage of similar core strengths, thus benefiting the PS3. And the result is nothing but an impressive showing of parity across both formats.

Sure, the 360 game may well tear a few frames every so often, and the PS3 build’s use of triple buffering adds additional controller latency into the mix, although neither really takes away anything from either version, or the game as a whole. For the most part, all in all Vanquish is virtually identical across the board on both platforms, with any subtle differences being mere curiosities than ranking marks on a scorecard.

In short, Platinum Games’ latest is an essential purchase regardless of which console you happen to own, and is in no way a repeat of the travesty that was Bayonetta. Although, the blame for that one lies solely in Sega’s court.

For a more complete look at the tech powering the game, and a nice companion piece to this somewhat lengthy follow up article, why not check out our earlier demo analysis. That is, if you haven’t already.

Thanks as always to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to Cynamite.de for the screens. Check out the original gallery here.

Tech Analysis: Sonic Adventure (PS3 & 360)

I have many fond memories of the original Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast, so much so that I thought I’d invest in a copy of the recent PSN and XBL HD re-release of this Sega classic. Mainly for fun at first. Although that fun quickly turned into investigating just how well this HD revision holds up for the latest IQGamer Tech Analysis.

On first impressions it looks like Sega has taken the liberty of porting and sprucing up the original DC version of the game. However, on closer inspection it is clear that this re-release is a bizarre combination of the GCN version of the game (Sonic Adventure DX), minus the extra content, with the DC original’s title screen tagged onto the end of it.

For those of you who don’t know, Sonic Adventure DX featured a few graphical upgrades over the DC game, including specular highlighting on Sonic and the other main characters, reworked texturing, and a boost in overall framerate. And this is exactly what we get here, but with some additional tweaks and changes. Unfortunately, the DX version also features far more in the way of potentially game-breaking collision glitches, and sloppy control issues, neither of which felt quite as bad in the standard DC game.


The first thing you’ll notice, is that Sonic Adventure comes in a bordered 4:3 aspect ratio, with thick stripy bars on each side of the screen, and thin ones at the top and bottom. While the overall output resolution of the framebuffer is in fact 720p (1280x720) the gameplay segment itself is presented in 920x690, being 1:1 mapped to ensure that the image isn’t being cut off.

Interestingly, the final output looks somewhat blurrier than what a 690p image would look like when occupying its space in a native 720p framebuffer. Instead we can see that the game is actually rendering in 480p, and then being upscaled to 690p to form the final displayed frame. It’s not rendering in bordered HD that’s for sure.

The difference between what the game looks like when running in native 720p can be found below. The top screen shows the PC version running in true HD resolution, while the bottom shows the PSN and XBLA version upscaled to 690p.


PC


PS3 & 360

Without doubt this has to be one of the most disappointing aspects of the port, rendering in SD, and is an indication of just how much of a rush job to market it initially appears to be. When you consider that both the 360 and PS3 could easily handle the PC version of Sonic Adventure DX running in 720p, and at 60fps, then it is a mildly bitter pill to swallow, and a worrying sign for future DC conversions.

Saying that the upscaling method itself is very good - better than we've seen on some full price titles - and although this PSN and XBLA re-release doesn’t use any form of anti-aliasing, the game looks reasonably smooth, being free of most harsh jagged lines and polygon edges.

So, with no AA being present the smooth look can instead be attributed to the game’s poor use of bilinear texture filtering, and blurred nature due to the framebuffer being upscaled, both of which affect final image quality heavily. In still screens the lack of AA is more easily noticeable, though that doesn’t always appear to be the case in motion.

Thankfully, resolution isn’t everything, and most of the enhanced visual effects introduced in the GCN version of the game have been included here; additional specular highlighting, greater use of defuse mapping, and texturing changes are all brought to the table.


PC


DC

Above you can see the changes between the DC and PC versions of the game. These also apply to the PSN and XBLA releases too, and give you an idea of the differences between SA DX and vanilla SA.

However, both the PSN and XBLA builds of the game also feature improved shadowing on the characters as well. This can be seen on Sonic’s mouth and belly in the screenshot below, and looks pretty odd in motion, seeming a little overblown and unnatural.


Unusually, this version of Sonic Adventure lacks the inclusion of the reflective water found in the GCN build, but still features the same updated texturing. Oddly, this is also apparent in the PC game, a telltale sign that highlights which code was used for the PS3 and 360 ports.

Outside of these slight differences, nothing else appears to have changed. The art assets used are definitely the updated GCN ones, and in some cases look a tad blurrier, or less detailed than some of the ones used in the original DC game. The sheen on Sonic in particular is unnecessary, and some of the texturing now looks murky and undefined. However, many textures actually benefit from being replaced with higher-res versions, and look much better than the ones used in the original DC game. Though these improvements are largely under-represented due to the upscaled nature of the final image distorting things somewhat.


One area in which the PS3 and 360 versions of Sonic Adventure have seen the biggest gains, is with regards to performance. It’s nice to finally see a version of the game running largely as originally intended with only a few dips in fluidity intruding on the action.

Sonic Adventure runs at a near constant 60fps for 99.9 percent of the time, and the difference is instantly noticeable. I only encountered the odd drop down to 30fps, which lasted only for a brief second or so, maybe less. Apparently, in the 360 version these little dips happen slightly more frequently. However, I can’t confirm this for sure as I only own the full PS3 game, and the 360 demo, but not the full retail release.

For those of you who don’t know, early demos and pre-release builds of SA on the Dreamcast ran at 60fps with frequent drops in framerate, often down to 30fps. However, the final game runs at 30fps, with heavy bouts of slowdown to 20fps in the most detailed areas. Many parts of the Lost World stage saw the game holding a near constant 20fps, before narrowly getting back up to the 30 mark.

By contrast the GCN DX port managed to hit 60fps pretty much all the way through the entire game, with regular and sometimes random drops to 30, sometimes even 20fps, regardless of whether or not detail levels were significantly higher. In particular, the game often juddered between fluctuating framerates, sometimes hitting the target 60fps for extended periods of time, sometimes not.

Going back to the PS3 and 360 ports, and rather bizarrely, SA’s cut-scenes completely side step the upgrade to 60fps altogether, and are delivered with a fifty percent cut in smoothness compared to the standard during gameplay. The in-engine cinematics are all locked at 30fps, with no real reasoning as to why this was done. It’s not as if these parts of the game would prove more difficult to optimise, since the rendering load does not change at the drop of a hat like in gameplay (it can be controlled and is utterly predictable), then if anything, guaranteed performance at 60fps should be easier to obtain.

Like with the upscaled nature of the game’s framebuffer resolution, it appears that the developers have simply been rather lazy, performing optimisations on the most obvious parts of the game, whilst leaving others almost completely untouched. What is stranger still, is that the addition of improveved shadowing can be seen in both the cut-scenes and the gameplay, meaning that some tweaks were in fact made to both the engine, and entire game as a whole.

As expected, SA is fully v-synced on both platforms and never so much as tears a single frame. Of course this was the case on both the DC and GCN, but is an increasing rarity with titles this generation. Either way it’s nice to see a title not only hitting its target framerate but also doing that without tearing frames. Although, for an even year-old game running on a current gen platform, in 640x480 no less, you should expect nothing less, especially in lieu of any major (or barely even minor) graphical upgrades.


All things considered, whilst the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Sonic Adventure aren’t exactly great ports overall, they are redeemable in some respects, and the upgrade to 60fps is both pleasing on the eye and beneficial to the controls. Sonic himself is far more responsive, and the flow of the action is better represented than ever before.

However, the conversion also reeks of laziness through and through. The lack of any kind of widescreen support, or even the option to change the colour of the border surrounding the gameplay is unacceptable in this day and age. And the absence of a true 720p HD presentation is baffling to say the least.

Outside of that, the use of the DX code means that there are more gameplay glitches than in the Dreamcast original, with characters getting stuck in scenery, and odd collision detection errors being quite commonplace - things that arguably should have been sorted out given the high-profile nature of the release.

In conclusion then, the PS3 and 360 release of Sonic Adventure is still perhaps one of the best versions of the game we’ve seen so far, even if it doesn’t quite play as well as the DC original. Seeing, and ‘feeling’ it running in 60fps makes it well worth a look despite the obvious criticisms. Although, at the same time one can’t help but feel somewhat cheated considering both consoles could quite easily handle a full 1080p60 port without breaking sweat.

Thanks to sonicretro.org for the additional screens used in this feature.

Tech Analysis: Enslaved Demo (360 vs PS3)

When most people talk about the PS3’s unique architecture and the games which really show off the machine’s graphical prowess, both Uncharted 1&2 often crop up, as do Killzone 2 and God Of War 3. However, many seem to have forgotten about Heavenly Sword. Because during a time when HDR lighting and anti-aliasing were thought near impossible to do on the PS3’s NVIDIA 7800 derivative GPU in combination, Ninja Theory’s cinematic action game was doing just that.

At the time using a custom HDR format known as LogLuv (NAO32) allowed the developers to include full range HDR lighting whilst also adding proper 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing support into the mix. Combined with highly detailed texturing, advanced facial animation and complex character modelling, Heavenly Sword still holds up well today, and is the culmination of a collaboration between NT and other Sony studios in sharing technology to improve PS3 development.

Enslaved shares similar traits to that title. The game takes on a deeply filmic tone, cinematic in its execution, while the gameplay features slightly delayed response times with regards to the controls, and canned animations to keep the feel of an interactive move at the forefront of the experience. This is all backed up by superb voice work by Andy Serkis (who also did Heavenly Sword) and a solid script from Alex Garland, writer of the Beach and 28 Days Later.

However, there are a few differences between Enslaved and Heavenly Sword. The former was simply a PS3 exclusive, designed to get the most out of Sony’s machine in order to have a strong third-party offering for the format. Enslaved however, is a multiplatform release appearing on both PS3 and 360.

With this change of direction comes a change in game engine. Rather than to try and port over the tech powering their last effort, Ninja Theory has opted to use the Unreal Engine 3 for Enslaved. A common choice amongst third-party developers, it usually tends to favour the 360 as its lead platform with the PS3 often on the receiving end of some less than stellar conversions. Lower framerates, an abundance of screen tearing, and lower rendering resolutions are normal issues the PS3 faces with games using the engine.

That said, UE3 also provides a powerful, more familiar development environment in which to work on. And for Enslaved that is exactly why Ninja Theory decided to choose the engine over and above porting across their custom approach powering Heavenly Sword. But unlike other most other titles that use it, Enslaved manages to scrub up incredibly well on both platforms, almost hitting parity on the PS3. Apart from having one of two lower res / scaled back effects, and lower overall performance, both versions aren’t far off from being identical.


Most of the time with titles using UE3, it is common to find a discrepancy between the framebuffer resolution on one platform and on another. However, you’ll be pleased to know that Enslaved renders in 720p (1280x720) on both 360 and the PS3, with the game appearing identical in this regard.

Unlike Singularity, and both Gears Of War 1&2 on the 360, neither version of Enslaved features the standard selective 2xMSAA anti-aliasing solution used in most UE3 titles. Instead both versions lack AA altogether, and maintain similar levels of sharpness to each other.

Although, this isn’t quite as bad as it first sounds, seeing as the selective AA favoured by the engine usually has very little impact in real world terms. In still screenshots there is a noticeable, but slight improvement in overall image quality. However, this is simply restricted to either static objects, or the whole scene if nothing is moving. So in effect, most of the time you get practically no AA coverage anyway, thus making its inclusion of little worth when you consider the marginal gains on offer.

That said, even with a lack of AA Enslaved is hardly a jagged mess, and most of the harsher polygon edges are smoothened out by the game use of a stylish post process motion blur effect, and a little bloom lighting, which in effect negates the need for the jaggies reduction provided by 2xMSAA.


Although the inclusion of motion blur in Enslaved is mainly there for cinematic purposes. It also makes the whole experience take on a more cinematic tone, reproducing the camera blur present in fast action sequences found in movies.

A side effect of the blur is that it gives an impression of making the game seem smoother than it actually is. Usually this is done to make a 30fps experience flow slightly more like one that is perhaps running at 45fps, but obviously without truly achieving this. It’s a nice but subtle illusion, and in Enslaved it helps to briefly hide some of the game’s smaller drops in framerate. Though not the heavier ones, in which case there is nothing it can do.

As mentioned earlier the use of motion blur also has the effect of smoothening out jagged lines caused by the game’s lack of AA. The 360 version benefits the most, looking slightly smoother than the PS3 game. Albeit subtly so.

The reason for this, is that the use of the motion blur has been paired back on the PS3 build. It is clearly stronger on the 360 game, helping to deliver a slightly cleaner and more filmic look to the proceedings. Although, the difference is far less noticeable in motion than it is in the still screens featured on this page.

You may also notice that sometimes the PS3 version is missing blur entirely. This only tends to happen when use of the effect is so subtle that the engine doesn’t even activate it on the PS3, where it is cut down anyway. The result is that some scenes benefit from it, while others don’t.



Another area in which the 360 sees a handful of subtle graphical improvements, is with regards to the resolution of certain visual effects. Things like smoke, electricity, and certain lighting and particle effects are rendered in a lower resolution on the PS3. The two screenshots above show just how close both versions are; some effects like the electric power staff have harsher edges on the PS3 and appear slightly more aliased in motion, whilst the light coming through the ship on the right hand-side appears slightly softer owing to both seeing a reduction in resolution.

However, the differences are very subtle and hard to spot when playing the game, if not occasionally impossible. They certainly don’t take anything away from the PS3 build at all, instead showing that slight compromises don’t always lead to detrimental impact on overall graphical quality.


In terms of lighting and shadowing both are virtually identical as well. The 360 build gets a slight increase in bloom lighting, making hard polygon edges look smoother – much like the use of motion blur, the effect helps in reducing overall scene aliasing - whereas PS3 owners get a reduced version of the same thing featuring less image smoothing properties.


The shadowing model is reasonably accomplished, though somewhat basic compared to the likes of Uncharted 2, or even Bioshock 2 - that’s to say it has an effect of making parts of the game look very flat at times. In particular, with half of the objects in daylight scenes being covered by shadows, there is little depth to be had in these darkened parts of the environment. Instead, the only time in which the game really delivers a direct, noticeable sense of depth is with high contrasting light and dark areas.


Changing the intensity of the different light sources found in the game, along with expanding the range of colour provided by them would go a along way in circumventing this. As it stands the shadowing lacks a decent amount of tonal variations, and differing light values to do this. Neither PS3 nor 360 benefit from featuring any improvements or downgrades in this area, though the PS3’s shadowing looks slightly different from the way it is implemented on the 360, but not necessarily looking worse because of it.


Outside of the lighting and effects differences, for the most part, Enslaved actually looks identical across both platforms – a stark contrast to say, Bioshock 2, which had severe cuts made to its alpha buffer (effects) resolution, and an intrusive blur filter placed over the entire screen. Much like Singularity, the developers have done a rather good job in achieving parity on this front.

Ninja Theory have managed to get both texture detail and filtering looking mostly like for like across both versions, with the PS3 build in particular not suffering from lower res texturing than the 360 game, or gaining the usual bump in anisotropic filtering found in most titles running on the platform. It is definitely one of the better examples of multiplatform UE3 engine development, in which most changes don’t adversely affect either version in any significant way.

The same cannot be said in terms of overall performance though, in which we see the 360 build carving out a lead over the PS3 game. However, this is mostly apparent when playing each version one after the other, and not so much so when played on their own in a stand-alone fashion.


With Enslaved, the developers are clearly aiming to maintain a consistent 30fps throughout. And like with most titles using the unreal engine, the game regularly toggles between dropping framerate and losing v-sync in order to achieve that target. In this regard the 360 build fares better than the PS3 one. As we’ve seen before with Singularity, the UE3 engine appears to be more suited to Micrososft’s platform with less in the way of constant framerate drops happening, and definitely a lot less screen tearing.

The 360 version of Enslaved seems to take the most balanced approach between strictly maintaining v-sync whilst losing framerate, and dropping it ever so briefly in order to preserve it. Effectively this means that the overall amount of screen tearing taking place is regularly kept in check, with just a few small occurrences relatively subtle in their appearance.

By contrast the PS3 game tears more often, and when it occurs it is far more noticeable as a whole. Tearing isn’t just restricted to the top of the screen for short periods, but can be seen across the entire screen in parts. However, this only seems to happen in areas in which the engine becomes put under stress. The more stuff on screen, the more tearing that occurs, along with a larger drop in framerate. We're talking down to 24 - 20fps at times, though usually for only a few seconds at once. Most of the time the tearing is far more subtle in nature, and the PS3 version very often hits 30fps, with just smaller drops overall, before struggling in heavy load scenarios.

The 360 game also goes through a few heavy drops in framerate (mostly in cut-scenes), although it is feels more distinctly controlled, and doesn’t have the tendency to constantly tear frames when this happens. In which case we can see that the PS3 game largely isn’t v-synced at all, whereas the 360 game is, and often maintains it successfully, tearing less frames and keeping up its framerate.

However, the lack of v-sync on the PS3 version also leads to it having small additional spikes in performance over the 360 game. Some segments actually see it hit the target 30fps when the 360 build is lagging behind slightly. Though this certainly isn’t commonplace, and isn’t really a substitute for more even levels of performance.

Overall, it is clear that the 360 version performs better than the PS3 one, holding its framerate more solidly and tearing less frames. The use of v-sync can lead to heavy drops in performance, with frames being dropped significantly in parts – mainly the cut-scenes. But by and large it is manages to hit the target 30fps far more consistently than the PS3 game without suffering near constant screen tearing in places. The PS3 build may offer the occasional, slight performance advantage, but loses it with its lack of v-sync and generally more erratic framerate.

Saying that, much of the time the two can look virtually identical even when performance isn’t as good on the PS3 – especially when not going head-to-head against each other.


To be fair, despite issues with performance both versions of Enslaved are almost like for like. Other than a few lower resolution effects, and a downgrade in the usage of motion blur, most of the game looks identical across the board – that is to say that it can look lovely at times, both technically and stylistically, regardless of how it performs during gameplay.

Obviously, the same trends regarding the performance of the UE3 engine on PS3 remain; more unstable framerates and an increased amount of screen tear seem to be issues most developers haven’t been able to get around just yet. Though the gap does seem to be closing – we’re no longer looking at sub-HD UE3 PS3 ports anymore. Not for the most part anyway.

Granted, people who own both platforms should perhaps pick up the 360 version as it performs noticeably better across the board, though not in every instance. At the same time, the actual graphical differences outside of performance are so minor (motion blur aside) that there isn’t all that much in it. In fact you’d be hard-pressed to notice, and that certainly counts for something.

In conclusion Enslaved is better all-round on the 360, but is generally solid across both platforms, with pretty much no major differences outside of performance that you are likely to notice during gameplay. The use of high latency control also gives the whole game a somewhat laggy feel to it, and the fairly slow, Uncharted-like gameplay means that issues with framerate don’t tend to spoil things as much as they would do in fast-paced action titles that require far quicker reflexes.

Thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to videogameszone.de for the screenshots. The full gallery of uncompressed framebuffer grabs can be found here. I suggest that you check them out.