Tech Analysis: Mass Effect 2 Demo (PS3 vs 360)

This year we have already seen a tangible improvement in PS3 games that use the Unreal Engine 3, or even the UE in general. While titles such as Bioshock 2 added fire to the flames with low resolution alpha buffers and the inclusion of blur a filter of sorts, titles such as Ninja Theory’s Enslaved and the Activision published Singularity, showed that when optimised, PS3 versions of UE3 games could look and indeed run almost identically, with performance being the main separating factor.

The engine powering Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 is basically an updated, highly customised version of the UE3, an engine which is largely tailored to the Xbox 360 and its high levels of memory bandwidth delivering usually solid performance and plenty of full resolution visual effects. It's not uncommon then, to see the PS3 often struggling to cope with displaying the same level of visual fidelity given the engine’s use of high resolution alpha, and large instances of normal mapped transparencies.

However, as we’ve seen in two titles which use the engine this year, platform parity is indeed possible with some careful optimisations, and this is exactly what Bioware have done when approaching the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2. There are of course a few mandatory cutbacks, where the PS3’s reduced memory bandwidth automatically means a small hit in certain graphical effects and shaders, but there are also a few improvements too, not least of all more natural use of lighting and better overall performance.


360


PS3

Starting off with a look at the framebuffer, Mass Effect 2 renders in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms with what appears to be no anti-aliasing. However, as we’ve discussed before, the way the Unreal Engine 3 works means that standard MSAA solutions are often broken, with most edges simply getting zero AA at all. And this is exactly what we find here.

ME2 does in fact feature 2xMSAA on 360 in its core rendering make-up, although, due to the differed nature of how the UE engine operates in ME2 – rendering various parts of the framebuffer in different passes – the effect is basically borked to the extent of not being there at all. Once all elements have been added in rendering the final frame, we are left with a image devoid of any kind of noticeable edge smoothing. While on the other hand, the PS3 version seems to feature no AA at all.

Aliasing and shimmering then is often noticeable in high contrast areas, although overall IQ improves a little in dark scenes whereby distinct edges are less apparent. Both PS3 and 360 builds are basically identical in this regard.


360


PS3


360


PS3

Outside of the FB, Mass Effect 2 features both some obvious, and not so obvious upgrades and downgrades to the game engine on the PS3. As expected, allowances have had to be made for the console’s reduced memory bandwidth compared to the 360. As we’ve discussed many times before, with no EDRAM there is less bandwidth for normal mapping, textures, and shader effects, all of which have an impact on how the engine must be tailored to work around these limitations.

Here, we see that the PS3 version of the game features lower resolution/less detailed texturing on characters faces, along with paired back shader effects. Notice how subtle details, such as pores, fine lines etc, appear flatter and less pronounced on the PS3, and the skin in general having a slightly less detailed look to it. This tends to be more noticeable in some scenes than others, with lighting, shadowing, and camera distance all playing a part.


360


PS3

Another area in which the PS3 build sees similar changes in rendering quality, is with regards to normal mapping and specular highlighting. In addition to the paired back nature of texturing and shader effects on characters, we can see what looks like lower resolution normal mapping and downgraded specular on the characters.

In terms of specular, in some scenes use of the effect is simply rendered differently – apparent on character faces - but in a similar resolution to that of the 360 game, while in others the effect actually seems to be either completely absent or rendered in a lower res.


360


PS3


360


PS3

We can also see a reduction/lack of specular reflections in some parts of the environment itself, caused by the absence of any HDR-like bloom lighting on the PS3. The metal frame around the glass has what looks like both a specular and diffuse reflection map on the 360 game, whereas on the PS3 only what looks like the diffuse effect seems to be present.

Another example can be see in the second row of screenshots above, in a scene in which the difference is more apparent in the 360 game. The scene’s lighting composition makes the effect look a tad more intense, with shiny objects providing ample reflections. By contrast, on the PS3 the level of sheen and reflective properties has been paired back in comparison.


360


PS3

Interestingly, Bioware have for some elements of the game seemed to have upped the texture resolution of certain details on character clothing in direct compromise to removing the use of normal mapping. Above we can see that Miranda’s hexagonal suit uses a higher res texture map on the PS3, but at the same time isn’t normal mapped at all.

Arguably, the choice in using slightly higher resolution assets in it self would use up more memory than preserving it – which again isn’t an ideal solution when working on PS3. However, the cost of normal mapping in this case is indeed greater than that of a higher res texture, so by compromising in this way the developers still make the required savings in memory while also reducing the overall discrepancy between both builds.

In which case, Bioware has clearly made the right choice. The lack of normals doesn’t impact greatly on the scene in general, with lighting and shadowing still bringing depth to it. Occasionally, there are times whereby things do appear to look a little flatter as a result of this change, but nothing remotely impactfull. The characters still look great.


360


PS3

Moving on, and we can see that Bioware have made most of the downgrades on the characters themselves - with the exception of the removal of bloom and specular, the environments are largely left untouched looking exactly the same as found in the 360 version. From what I gather, it stands to reason that it was far easier for the team to make cuts on elements which are constantly present throughout the entire game – the characters - rather than having to shift through all the environment modelling downgrading parts from there.

However, beyond this there have also been a number of improvements to the engine powering Mass Effect 2 on the PS3. Being crafted from the newer, massively customised version of the UE3 – used in the upcoming ME3 - there have been a small range of upgrades and changes to both lighting and shadow composition along with performance compared to the 360 build of the game.


360


PS3

The first of these improvements on the PS3 version of the game comes with a differing approach to shadow filtering more suited to the Sony platform. On the 360, ME2 used jittered samples for filtering of its shadowmaps, thus leaving an unsightly dithered look to shadow edges. By contrast, on PS3 the developers have implemented the standard PCF shadowmap filtering that comes as standard – and with next to no cost –in order to improve shadow edges.

As a result we can see cleaner, sharper shadow edges on the PS3 build. The actual resolution of the shadowmaps themselves are still low resolution on both, it’s just the use of filtering that has changed. Obviously, the PCF method still results in some jittering shadows, like in Gran Turismo 5, which is unfortuniteky unavoidable, although preferable to the dithery shadows on the 360 game.


360


PS3


360


PS3

The second change is with regards to the overall lighting system implemented throughout the game. While the use of bloom has been removed from the PS3 engine code, the game features a more natural looking lighting system as a whole, with increased environmental and character shadow details, along with less harsh lighting from various specific lightsources.

Lighting appears to be more ambient in nature, and doesn’t suffer from intensely lighting up character faces like if they were to have a direct light source shining on them. Sometimes this makes it look like the characters aren’t being lit up by specific environment lights, though often it makes the scene look less contrasty and easier on the eyes.


360


PS3

Not all the changes in the lighting scheme work quite as well though, with various errors in lighting taking place – no doubt owing to the use of the ME3 lighting engine, and converting the ME2 lighting over to it for the PS3 build. Occasionally we see characters that aren’t lit and shaded as they as supposed to be, covered in darkness with ambient light barely having any impact.

Also, the use of self-shadowing in the PS3 build can also appear somewhat strong, sometimes looking a tad overdone in comparison to the implementation of the effect on the 360.

However, these oddities largely don’t take away anything from the modified lighting solution, with the lack of strong, often harsh source-dependant lights creating a slightly more balanced tone to things overall. Clearly, Bioware have had to make a compromise in fitting the lighting scheme from ME2 into something that would work in the new engine, and as a result some errors are inevitable, which is something that could only be sorted out with a complete re-write of the way lighting is handled as a whole in ME2. But given both time constraints and the impending release of ME3, that wasn’t at all feasible.


360


PS3

Lastly, in terms of performance we see that both versions have been optimised in different ways, with separate approaches to maintaining framerate and enabling v-sync. Now, while we can only compare the first part of the demo - the 360 one features a different second scenario - it is clear that performance is reasonably good on both platforms during gameplay, but on the whole seems to be better on the PS3 (both game play and cut-scenes), with less in the way of framerate drops at the expense of noticeable screen tearing.

Essentially, the 360 build is continuously v-synced, with screen tear only visible within the overscan area of the screen. As the load increases so the engine struggles to cope, and we see a drop in framerate down from the targeted 30fps down to something approaching the 20fps mark and then back up again. This is most noticeable during the cut-scenes, as during the opening gameplay section the framerate comes close to consitantly running at 30fps. Although, the framerate can drop down slightly more in some places on the PS3 compared to the 360, along with also spiking up beyond the 30fps mark.

By contrast, the PS3 build runs with an uncapped framerate and intermittent use of v-sync, whereby as the framerate begins to drop below the 30fps mark the engine ditches sync in order to keep a steady update throughout. The upside: is that we see a far more consistent 30fps update in the PS3 build overall, with framerates still dropping in heavier load scenarios. The downside: is that the game suffers from noticeable screen tearing.

So, the game’s cut-scenes run much smoother on the PS3, but drop frames noticeably on the 360. Tearing however, like during actual gameplay is visible as a result. In addition, the use of an uncapped framerate sometimes creates an uneven screen refresh experience during gameplay, whereby a constant upping and dropping of frames can create a few jerky moments in areas with little detail or that don’t greatly tax the engine.

But all in all, both versions seem to be well optimised for the platforms they are running on. All things considered, Bioware have differing priorities when attempting to deliver stable performance on each console, with the 360 game favouring a lower average framerate over tearing frames, and the PS3 build benefiting by running smoother, tearing frames when the engine isn’t ready to render the next one.


360


PS3

In conclusion, with Mass Effect 2 Bioware definitely looks to be on track in delivering a solid conversion of the game to the PS3, boasting some subtle and noticeable engine improvements, but with a few obviously inevitable downgrades. However, the cuts made in facial texture details, specular effects, and shaders barely impact on the overall experience as a whole. The PS3 version also benefits from having a more natural lighting scheme, which is easier on the eyes in scenes with high contrast lighting, and performance is for the most part - sans tearing - better than on 360.

Some rendering errors, like the odd instances of what looks like a failure to light characters in certain scenes properly, or the reduced levels of effects, due to PS3’s memory constraints, mean that neither version comes out on top – technically speaking, it can often feel like being tit for tat. But ultimately, both fare excellently in this regard anyway, featuring plenty of detail and a mostly balanced use of shadowing, which means that some of the choices will come down to which overall look you prefer than raw technical merit.

Obviously, the demo provides us with only a sample teaser of how both versions compare. But from both the opening segment and the second section exclusive to the PS3 demo, I’d be more than happy to go with the Sony version given the choice, especially as the final game will include all of the DLC and extra content of the 360 original. But either way on the very basis of the game itself, Mass Effect 2 should be well worth picking up whichever platform you happen to own.

Thanks go out to Mazinger Dude for the screens, and of course as ever to AlStrong for counting those pixels.

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: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (PS3 vs 360)

There has always been quite a considerable gap in between the PS3 and 360 versions of previous Assassin’s Creed titles. Whilst most of the core make-up of each game was in fact pretty much identical, sans occasional differences, both performance and image quality lagged behind on the PS3. So much so that Ubisoft themselves ublicly recognised this, with Level Design Content Director, Phillipe Bergeron, acknowledging that more could be done in a recent interview with IGN.

"At the end of ACII we realised that the PS3 was sort of an afterthought – or, not that it was an afterthought, but we hadn't fully debugged it until the very end, and we had a bunch of frame rate issues and quality issues. This time around we knew that, because we went through it once, so we decided to attack it from the beginning and I think the final product is much more on the level, and even on some parts, the frame rate is probably sometimes better on the PS3 than it is on 360."

The question is though. Did Ubisoft Montreal actually follow through, or are we left with another disappointing PS3 port, complete with noticeably worse performance and a smeary Vaseline-styled look? The answer in fact, may just surprise you. As although Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood shares much with its predecessors, it is certainly a more polished affair in which the PS3 version stands up remarkably well with its 360 counterpart. It is for the most part, bar some texture blurring and a contrast/gamma difference, identical.


360


PS3

As expected Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both formats, with 360 getting the standard issue 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) as usually seen in titles on the platform, and the PS3 once again receiving the alternative quincunx (QAA) solution.

As we’ve mentioned before in previous tech analyses, the very nature of how QAA works in smoothening jagged lines means that the entire image, including textures, gets blurred to some extend. Unlike with MSAA, QAA works on applying the smoothening algorithm to every pixel and not just specific edges.

Essentially edge-based pixels are still sampled in a similar way, however QAA uses a five-point sampling pattern which inconveniently works on all areas of the image regardless of whether an edge is present or not – pixels in both low and high contrast areas are equally affected, which is the main cause of textures becoming blurred as a result.

The choice of using QAA over traditional MSAA then, is rather strange to say the least, considering the technique comes with roughly the same processing and memory cost as 2xMSAA. But the advantage it seems, is with it being able to deliver ample edge smoothing closer to that of 4xMSA, though at the expense of overall scene clarity.

The most obvious reason for its use probably stems from an artistic decision rather than a purely technical one – there’s no reason why MSAA couldn’t have been implemented, so it’s likely that the developers actually wanted to have 4xMSAA type levels of edge smoothing on both platforms, but without any easy way to do so on 360 (you would have to use tiling). The PS3, naturally, has QAA as a standard form of anti-aliasing not included in the 360’s GPU feature-set (it’s an NVIDIA thing), so represents an obvious compromise.

However, compared to some games that use the technique, the QAA in ACB has less of an initial impact in overall image quality than you might expect. Especially seeing as the PS3 build’s 720p output remains fairly sharp and continuously crisp despite additional texture blurring.



Unfortunately, most of our comparison screens for ACB are rather compressed whilst suffering from obvious lack of proper gamma adjustment on the console end, which makes showing the clean appearance of the PS3 build and the extra sharpness of the 360 game rather difficult. As a result we’ve left all the screens untouched - free from additional compression induced labelling, whilst also bringing you two much higher quality PS3 screens in which to demonstrate out findings.

With the two shots above you can clearly see just how sharp the PS3 version really is, with the use of QAA providing a decent level of jaggies reduction without compromising the clarity of polygon edges. Some texture blurring is apparent, which is perhaps the biggest bugbear I have about the technique. But as you can see its affects aren’t especially displeasing - not in every instance - and as a result ACB still looks incredibly good on the PS3.


360


PS3

Despite all our images showcasing what looks like reduced quality texturing in the PS3 build ACB, you can see that the main reason for this is a combination of both the additional blur provided by the use of QAA and the drastic difference in gamma curves for both versions.

This gamma difference is half of what makes the PS3 game look less detailed on first impressions, with textures that could be misconstrued as being in a lower resolution to those not aware of how QAA imapcts on the final image. However, the actual assets used in the game are actually like-for-like, and you can see this when both versions closely scrutinised.

Instead, it is the initially higher contrast and washed out nature of the PS3 game, in combination with the QAA which helps in hiding texture details, and making the filtering come across as looking worse, which in fact, is actually identical (same levels of AF present on both). Calibrating both the brightness through the game’s own menu, and gamma on the HDTV itself practically solves the problem, with the PS3 version looking clean and sharp with more visible detail being present after this is done.


360


PS3


360


PS3

You can clearly see this above: the in-game brightness setting has been adjusted in order to provide a more uniform look across both consoles. HDTV settings haven’t been touched in these two phone captures, instead showing that a similar level of brightness can be obtain by simply changing an option in the game’s menu.

For the most part, like with Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit and indeed past Assassin’s Creed titles, both versions of Brotherhood look pretty much alike in the vast majority of areas, with any differences coming across more as mere quirks and rendering oddities than anything else. Other than the use of QAA and varying gamma curves, only performance really separates them in any meaningful way. And even in this regard, ACB has seen some noticeable improvements on the PS3 side.


360


PS3

In terms of performance past Assassin’s Creed titles have always been behind on the PS3, with more instances of slowdown and much greater amounts of screen tearing. Although in Brotherhood the gap has indeed been closed significantly, with less in the way of either taking place. Naturally, it is the 360 build which still commands an advantage, but both at times, feel and look very similar in this regard.

When looking at both 360 and PS3 versions of most games, it is clear that developers usually try to balance out the use of v-sync with trying to maintain a smooth framerate. Normally, PS3 owners are privy to a near solidly v-synced experience at the expense of a large increase in slowdown. Whilst on the 360, developers usually choose the opposite: ditching v-sync in order to allow for a smoother experience, but with noticeable amounts of screen tearing.

For ACB, like with past AC titles, Ubisoft Montreal have favoured the latter, in which case it is apparent that neither version employs v-sync but both can run relatively smoothly on many occasions. ACB targets a 30fps update, and the framerate is capped at that level – it never goes higher than this, but it does drop below.

However, both versions actually maintain a reasonably solid 30fps most of the time when load isn't being pushed – noticeable drops only really occur in situations where long draw distances are visible, or in areas in the city where crowds converse together. In these sections the 360 version does run smoother, featuring less prolonged dips in framerate (sometimes only by a few seconds or so) and less screen tearing. Although, on most occasions the two games operate near identically, with both dropping frames and tearing terribly at similar points. Bar perhaps the odd point in which the PS3 version felt a little smoother for a brief moment in time.

One thing that is apparent, is that the game on both platforms can suffer from regular, and continuous bouts of screen tearing even when the framerate appears to be mostly solid during the experience. In that respect, it is all too obvious that this concern from the first two AC titles hasn’t been fixed at all. The PS3 version tears more often than the 360 one, and both tear regularly in heavy load situations. Though perhaps this is something that we simply have to accept in order to gain better performance via a smoother overall framerate.

In the end ACB does display an improvement in this area on the PS3, although not quite to the extent we expected given Ubisoft publically released statement. Tearing is still an issue – more torn frames on the PS3 – and the framerate at times still struggles in a scenes with high detail and many characters on screen – on both formats no less. In which case it is obvious that despite some upgrades and optimisations, the PS3 version is still a little behind in terms of overall performance.

Saying that, there are often times where both versions are basically close to being like-for-like, and the differences during gameplay can be so subtle that they can regularly go unnoticed (between both formats). Screen tearing aside, both versions are reasonable performers, with the engine obviously struggling in situations where the overall load exceeds the capacity for it to be resolved.


360


PS3

Moving on, and we can see that the engine powering ACB on both platforms has seen a few steady improvements in the lighting and shadowing departments, along with other additional effects – the water for example, in some places, now looks to be made up of more than just a few texture changes.

Dynamic lighting and shadowing has been expanded upon, and the game features noticeable cloud coverage providing moving shadows which seem to affect the lighting and shadowing on the ground. All of this is done in real time, and actually accounts for some of the shadowing differences you can see in some of the screens.


360


PS3

The most obvious improvement comes with the inclusion of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), which adds an extra level of depth to the scene. Use of SSAO clearly expands the shadowing properties used throughout most of the game, and can be found noticeably on characters, and some parts of the environment. Along with the use of both dynamic and static shadowing, the use of SSAO helps to bring a more defining, realistic quality to the entire scene, with ample balance between areas of the environment with and without the effect.

Also in terms of shadowing, one thing we did notice was that certain shadows feature a slightly dithered look to them, much like what we were seeing in Mafia II. The effect stands out a little more on the 360, along with the shadowmaps themselves, which look sharper as a result of no QAA blurring. However, it also appears that the PS3’s use of QAA actually provides better blending with regards to the dithering effect - it becomes less obvious as a result.


360


PS3

In motion it is also possible to see some LOD issues with regards to the game’s use of shadowmaps - whereby shadowmaps feature a transitional change from lower to higher quality as you get closer to them - along with LOD issues on both platforms in general. Parts of the environment (textures, geometry, and shadows) in both the far distance and from a few feet away, tend to pop up noticeably on occasion as the engine struggles to load them in time. Though given the large draw distances it has to handle, this is understandable.

There are a few other differences to be found, but nothing major, or even anything that would really account for a clear rendering choice difference. Some shadowing and lighting oddities occasionally pop up – such as missing baked lighting on the PS3, or shadows appearing and popping in and out where they shouldn’t be. But this stuff isn’t noticeable whilst simply playing the game.


360


PS3

In the end Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is pretty solid on both platforms with the 360 version maintaining that technical edge in certain areas. On the other hand, with the exception of more screen tearing and the inclusion of the texture blurring QAA, the PS3 build is almost a good, having the same baseline assets and tech powering the game.

Even the use of QAA is no real blemish on the experience – calibrating both the game’s brightness level and the gamma on the HDTV makes overall image sharpness fairly close to that of the 360 game in this regard. The extra edge smoothing that quincunx provides can also create a more organic look to the overall visual make up of the game as a whole, with only some scenes looking noticeably worse off than others in terms of texture blur. In any case the PS3 version can be almost equally attractive if set up properly, even if the 360 game's additional sharpness is preferable.

Pretty much every aspect of the game in other areas is a like-for-like match, with only the odd rendering bug to separate them, and of course the 360 version’s lead in overall performance. But even that isn’t quite as commanding as with previous instalments – despite the PS3 build suffering from more noticeable bouts of screen tearing, the general framerate is pretty much in the same ballpark for both versions, with the 360 only fairing a little better in most cases from what we’ve played.

As to whether Ubisoft have delivered on their promise to provide a thoroughly more optimised, de-bugged PS3 experience. I think that as a whole they have. While perhaps not eradicating all of the problems found in previous titles, the overall result is far, far closer than before, with the 360 code no longer having a significant advantage. In short, there could be more work done to improve performance, but otherwise what we have here is a clear step forward in the right direction - a solid result in delivering a decent multi-platform outcome.

Ultimately, ACB can be comfortably recommended across both formats with your purchasing decision more likely coming down to which controller you prefer to use, or which format your friends play online with. The added inclusion of exclusive DLC for PS3 owners is yet another thing to consider, if a choice is indeed available to you. Either way, I’m sure most users will be happy whichever version they opt to go for.

As always, many thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to Cynamite.de for most of the screens. The full gallery can be found here.