Tech Analysis: Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit (PS3 vs 360)

After taking a fairly in-depth technical look at the demo for Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, we came away decidedly impressed with the superb quality of the work on offer. The use of a highly optimised multi-platform engine, whereby through parralelisation of code - in the form of scalable modules which can run on multiple cores/SPU’s – not only yielded solid results across both platforms. But also confirmed that Criterion’s approach to development was indeed the right one.

In terms of platform parity, the demo was for all accounts, identical on both platforms, with next to nothing in separating them. Texture detail, filtering, lighting, and almost every graphical effect had been careful replicated on both the PS3 and the 360, whilst performance was surprisingly rock solid - 30fps being upheld near constantly, with no screen tearing taking place.

The most interesting parts of our analysis focused us on the game’s use of anti-aliasing - what looked like an additional technique had been included over and above the standard 2xMSAA solution, and the use of an incredibly impressive dynamic lighting system. Both of which were points we wanted to investigate further outside of the night time track we had only access to in the demo. And these are exactly the things we’ll be taking another look at here today, along with another look at performance in the company of the final game.


First of all, just a quick recap. NFS:HP renders in 720p on both platforms with edge smoothing being provided by use of 2xMSAA. Extra smoothing is also present from a currently unknown, custom form of AA, which is used to help reduce sub-pixel aliasing issues on thin strips of geometry and objects that appear far off into the distance.

In the demo we reported on the noticeable improvement in overall image quality present from the additional implementation of custom AA, although at the same time where left with only half the picture. For our demo analysis, we only had access to the night time portion of the game, which as regular readers of IQGamer should know, low contrast areas often provide a best case scenario for most anti-aliasing techniques (supersampling and MLAA aside). The real test of how well Criterion’s custom solution actually works, is in the higher contrast daytime sections of the final code.


As you can see in the screenshot above, like in the demo, power lines and small objects far off into the distance get a huge amount of edge smoothing not possible just by using 2xMSAA on its own. Edge shimmering is noticeably reduced as a result, and the scene has a more solid look to it.

Not all elements of the scene are covered however. Some objects, like the telegrapth poles and small fences at the side of the road, suffer from both high contrast aliasing and subpixel issues, where by the samples created by the MSAA are insufficient to deal with such things. These do result in some jagged and shimmering edges being present, sometimes unavoidably so. Although, overall sampling coverage, and indeed jaggies reduction is very good considering the look of the game.

Despite the high contrast nature of some of the daytime scenes, aliasing is indeed kept in check, with Criterion’s technique successfully aiding the 2xMSAA solution also apparent. As expected, jaggies aren’t completely eliminated - they can crop up frequently throughout the trackside scenery. But the overall result is more than satisfactory given the make up of the game engine – the lighting, huge draw distances etc.


Another thing that we were thoroughly impressed with in the demo, and that we wanted to check out in the finished game, in full daylight environments no less, was the title’s use of dynamic lighting. In NFS:HP the cars are lit and shaded in real time by the surrounding environment, with elements such as cloud coverage dramatically changing the lighting applied to the scene at any given time.

Image based lighting is used to do this, where the actual environment and lighting scheme are rendered first, before the cars are rendered afterwards in a separate pass. This allows the cars to be accurately lit and shaded at all times, changing constantly with regards to their position in the game world itself.

At night the range of different light sources in combination with cloud coverage gave way to an incredibly realistic look, with lighting that brought about a certain amount of naturalness to the overall look of the game. In the daytime we can see this effect being heightened even more. Various elements: such as the sun rising above hilltops as you come speeding around corners, and the constantly moving cloud dramatically impacts on lighting present in the scene, reacting instantly with the cars as they are being driven around the track.

With shadows constantly shifting, lighting is never the same across both versions at any given time. There is more range, and indeed scope on offer here too, making a noticeable difference. Although, the actual quality and implementation of the effect is the same on both PS3 and 360. This accounts for any lighting differences apparent in our comparison screens.


Interestingly, not every aspect of the game appears exactly like for like. In the demo we noticed that the specular maps on both the road and some environment surfaces seemed to be rendered in a slightly lower resolution on the PS3, and as we can see in the screenshot above, the same thing can indeed be found in the final game.

However, this oddity is only present under certain circumstances – the difference simply doesn’t exist when racing in full daylight conditions, nor does it appear above on the wall of the tunnel either (look to the left, it's the same on both). So maybe something else is interfering with it in some way. Either way, signs point to the reduced quality effect only being present when the car's headlights are directly shining on the road, in either dark parts of the track, or at night time.


In terms of performance, the final game, is as expected exactly like in the demo. NFS:HP runs at a rock solid 30fps (the game is framerate locked) at all times during gameplay on both formats, with the only slowdown occurring in takedown or car crash scenes, along with on some cinematics before and after the race. As these segments aren’t controllable by the player, the slowdown makes no real impact on the proceedings, other than visually, so there is no loss of controller responsiveness to be found during gameplay.

The use of v-sync is also fully apparent, with neither version exhibiting any screen tearing whatsoever. The high contrast nature of the daylight courses make tearing easier to see without having any equipment to measure it – that is to say that I saw none to be present at any point when playing the game.

So, performance is remarkably solid – a point we mentioned back when taking a look at the demo. But how does the game’s handling fair? Usually the lower the framerate, the greater the amount of latency has an affect on controller responsiveness, with any increase in lag being noticeable compared to games that run at 60fps. In the demo we sighted handling which felt slightly unresponsive, although actual controller feedback felt responsive.


As we first surmised, and experienced first hand in other games, the use of lower spec cars meant that fast turning or quick Burnout style drifting wasn’t really as easy as it should be. In fact, the handling model felt a little bit like Split Second – that is to say, that it felt a little unrefined. However, in the final game - with cars not a mile better than the ones given to us for use in the demo - we can see a marked improvement. The handling on the whole is far, far better, whilst maintaining that Burnout meets Split Second feel, without the compromise of feeling slightly laggy due to using those underpowered starting vehicles.

Of course, there’s no question that 60fps games, like Burnout Paradise, provide an ample improvement in controller responsiveness – lower latency means more instant feedback. Although, in this regard NFS:HP still feels incredibly responsive. More so it seems than many other 30fps racers, with the initial handling mechanic accounting for the difference.


Interestingly, it has been said that the PC version of the game can be made to run at 60fps with what looks like very little in the way of high-end hardware. Apparently, it is possible to acheive what I consider to be the benchmark framerate in which developers should strive for, with a simple mid-spec gaming rig. Unfortunately, my new PC isn’t ready yet, so I wasn’t able to test this out directly. But perhaps I might look into doing an update of sorts over the Christmas period if I have the time.

Either way, while it is obvious that NFS:HP would indeed benefit greatly from running at a higher framerate – sometimes the game is so fast that the 30fps update seems to lose its fluidity, even if it hasn’t actually changed – the experience is still a highly enjoyable one at that. Maybe the game isn’t quite as silky smooth as I would have liked – not at the super high speeds present. But of all the choices made, the compromise of having a rendering engine which draws massive vistas way into the distance, along impressive use of advanced dynamic lighting to boot, is a worthy one at that.


If its any consolation, the game’s use of motion blur often helps in making the game feel a tad smoother than it is. This is a common side effect of motion blur in general, in which the distorted nature of images in the scene can help to blend the separately rendered frames together, much like the way shutter speed affects the viewing of individual frames in film projection.

Given the insanely high speeds you are often driving at, the effect is a subtle one at best, felt more in the daytime races than at night. And sometimes, even it cannot make the game feel any smoother than it actually is. Thankfully, the constant 30fps update with no screen tearing keeps things nice and fluid. Although, that’s not to say a 60fps experience, with certain cut-backs made to the game’s advanced lighting system, wouldn’t be preferable.


In conclusion, the finished version of Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit is indeed as solid and technically accomplished as the demo - on both platforms no less, with only one slight difference doing absolutely nothing to tip the scales of balance in either way. Both versions come highly recommended, and although the lack of 60fps may come as a disappointment to ardent fans of Criterion’s past racers, that shouldn’t be enough to prevent you from screeching off that starting line in their company once again. Well… not if you want the best Need For Speed game in years that is.

Once again thanks go out to AlStrong for pixel counting and Cynamite.de for their screens. The full gallery of higher quality shots can be found here.

Tech Analysis: NFS: Hot Pursuit Demo (PS3 vs 360)

Some studios simply understand the foundations that make for good multi-platform development, and Criterion is at the forefront of those. With an engine custom built to take advantage of both consoles specific strengths, and leveraging near flawless workarounds against their weaknesses, it is no surprise to see that once again they have delivered another exceptional example of high-level PS3 and 360 development.

The tech powering Burnout Paradise showed that one of the key factors in achieving parity across both formats was parallelisation; whereby off loading multiple tasks across multiple CPU threads and processors allowed for nearly every small bit of CPU/GPU time to be used effectively. Scalability was at the core, with the level of overall processing time constantly shifting accordingly between tasks that needed it as and when required.

Criterion understands that spreading the workload and keeping all parts of the rendering engine busy is the main factor in obtaining constantly high performance across the board, and on both platforms. But it’s more than that; optimising the engine so that the core components that make up the graphical look of the game are suited to both platforms, and not just one, plays an equally massive role too.

For Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit Criterion have done exactly that. Like with Burnout Paradise the team have been able to balance out the underlying tech behind the game, with an impressive feature set; including real-time image-based lighting on the cars, beautiful specular highlights, and large, open environments, with cross platform performance that is shockingly soild.



And performance is indeed the first thing that you’ll notice: NFS:HP is clocked at a constant 30fps with absolutely no screen tearing. It goes without saying that both formats are like for like in this regard, and if anything proves that Criterion’s engine delivers on what it set out to do.

The game almost never deviates from its initial 30fps update, only taking a quick drop during some of the more intensive takedown scenes, but never during normal racing/driving. The same thing is true for both PS3 and 360; even when driving around like a lunatic, crashing into scenery and smashing into the sides of your rivals, the game preserves its smoothness with ease.

Along with barely any slowdown, I have to say that it is definitely something of a surprise to see a distinct lack of screen tearing being present during gameplay. NFS:HP seems to continuously maintain v-sync on both PS3 and 360 without needing to drop it in order to preserve framerate. This in contrast to the likes of Split Second in which v-sync is temporarily disengaged in order to ensure more steady performance as a result. But here, there doesn’t seem to be a problem.

However, I must also state that it is incredibly hard to detect extremely minor events of screen tearing in such dark and low contrast areas, so maybe it is possible that the odd frame could be being torn on very brief occasions, though that is not obvious during regular gameplay. Without equipment to measure such things, I can only go by what I’m seeing.



Running at half the framerate of Burnout Paradise (that was 60fps) NFS feels distinctly different to Criterion’s last title, and not just because of the framerate. The handling model has been completely reworked and built up into what feels and looks like a new game, and not a simple re-hash of what has gone before. Though the use of a lower framerate, and this new, slower drifting mechanic has a dramatic effect on the action.

Obviously running at 30fps introduces higher controller latency into the mix, whereby button presses and turns of the analogue stick are ever so slightly less instant than if the game was running at a higher framerate. This latency is definitely apparent over and above the 60fps Burnout Paradise, although it is actually the new handling mechanics, and the use of demo specific cars that make the control seem to have a little more lag than it does.

In fact, when gently moving the left stick to turn you can see that small, almost instant movements are possible, and that it is the way the game plays that brings about this feeling – it is intentional, and reminiscent of the handling found in Black Rock’s Split Second.



So in terms of performance both versions appear pretty much like for like, and we can also see the same thing being applied to the rest of the demo. Looking at screens, and by playing both versions almost side-by-side (flicking back and forth between HDMI inputs) we can see that texture detail, filtering, lighting, and the vast majority of effects are exactly the same on both platforms. It’s basically a solid match, with next to no discernable differences.

However, there was one really small difference that I was able to spot, though you will really have to go looking for it. Some of the specular maps on the game’s road surfaces are rendered in a slightly higher resolution on the 360. You can see this in the screenshot below. Notice how the bump-mapping appears slightly clearer on the 360 build, and slightly more blurred on the PS3.

It’s a very minor observation, one which rears its head on only some surfaces. But to be fair this isn’t something you are ever likely to notice when playing the game. And even if you do, it certainly isn't something that intrudes on the overall experience.



Moving on to the general make up of the game and image quality analysis, and we can see that NFS:HP is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms, with the standard 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) delivering ample edge smoothing.

Interestingly, there seems to be more than just MSAA going on in regards to this; many areas of the game (small pieces of geometry, objects in the distance, and most noticeably, power lines and thin wires) feature a surprising amount of jaggies reduction, more than what is possible with just regular MSAA. Both versions are exactly the same in this regard.

In the night-time police chase section – the only part of the demo we had access to – we can see that despite the low contrast nature of the scene aiding things slightly, that there is far less in the way of overall aliasing than expected on thin surfaces and polygon edges. Looking at still screen shots it is clear than parts of the environment are being smoothed out using another method of image smoothing. Which one, and how, we don’t really know, though the effect is solidly welcome.

However, the sub-pixel issue still appears in areas across the scene, with some objects in the distance still having noticeably shimmering edges, and some undesired shader aliasing. It’s definitely an improvement over what traditional anti-aliasing techniques would have provided, but not quite the clean, artifact free look that it can initially appear to be.

Either way, the use of MSAA plus additional edge smoothing is definitely beneficial, and delivers a tangible improvement over what we expected. It’s not anywhere near as impressive as God Of War 3’s use of MLAA (morphological anti-aliasing), but a nice inclusion nevertheless - many surfaces get great use of smoothing not otherwise obtainable by regular means.



Lastly, the way the lighting has been implemented is another nice plus point in this latest Criterion exploit. The whole game uses something called image-based lighting, whereby the cars are accurately lit by their surrounding environments at all times, meaning that the clouds and other numerous light sources all have an impact on how the cars look throughout the game.

This is done by rendering the environment first, using the more traditional forward rendering method, whilst the cars are done afterwards in a differed rendering pass. The environments have to be done first in order to accurately light and shade the cars; the result being a mightily impressive use of lighting with a level of realism not often seen outside high-end tech demos.



In the end the demo for Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit clearly showcases some of Criterion’s new tech rather nicely, and also manages to prove that their way of thinking when it comes to multi-platform development is in fact the right one. There’s barely any difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of the game, and aside from one small factor they look exactly the same.

The game may not always impressive on an artistic level – I personally don’t really like the night-time demo track all that much, but technically it definitely raises the bar in some respects. Some remaining sub-pixel aliasing isses aside (you need to use supersmapling, which isn’t feasible on consoles), it would be nice to see more developers taking this approach to game development.

Sadly, I wasn’t able to analyse the supposedly more impressive daytime track - it’s locked until one of your friends on both PSN and XBLA has downloaded and played the demo. And rather annoyingly, none of mine have, so a further look will be required when the final game comes out to really see just how well Criterion’s engine, and the overall game it self turns out. While the demo is a nice, intriguing starting point, it is only a tiny chunk of what the final release will have to offer.

As always thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and Cynamite.de for most of our comparison screens. Mr Deap for the others. A full gallery can be found here.