Tech Analysis: Call Of Duty: Black Ops (360 vs PS3)

It’s no surprise to hear that the Call Of Duty series currently leads the way in high-precision first-person shooters, with low latency controls and a framerate to die for, where near instant feedback and overall fluidity makes it one of the best gaming experiences around. And all of this comes with the decision to aim, and achieve a blistering sixty frames per-second. The sheer advantage that this bump in smoothness provides cannot be underestimated, and seeing this on primarily a console release is outstanding to say the least.

Of course, with such a high level of fluidity to maintain (something that is utterly essential for the whole experience to work) some compromises have obviously been made. And to that end, sacrifices in overall rendering resolution have taken place in order to accommodate this, along with reduced lighting and shader effects compared to other comparable games.

But despite this, the series is still home to lavish visual spectacle: a myriad of particle effects often don the screen, and a whole lot of work has gone into creating a highly detailed, albeit often closed off world in which to best demonstrate the trade-off between all out graphical exposition and a blindingly smooth framerate.

And with Call Of Duty: Black Ops, the action is even more intense, the effects are even more spic in scale, so parity between platforms then isn’t quite on the same level as with MW2 - compromises have definitely been made in getting the game up and running on the PS3 without cutting back on the core assets used. Though when you consider the additional graphical upgrades the engine has seen, the differences, compromises, whatever you want to call them, are completely understandable, if not unavoidable.


Like with previous instalments, the engine powering Black Ops is clearly engineered around reaching and maintaining regular 60fps performance. And like with those titles, it is no surprise to find that the game is presented in sub-HD on both platforms, with the drop in resolution offset with good scaling and use of anti-aliasing, following the same blueprint as every other COD title.

Black Ops renders in the familiar 1040x608 resolution on the 360, while the PS3 build gets a further downgrade to the even more lowly 960x544. Both versions benefit from having 2x multisampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) help smooth over the upscaling process, reducing jagged edges at the same time.

The change in rendering resolution on the PS3 may at first seem a little surprising. But Black Ops has also had some noticeable upgrades in shader effects and in its use of alpha-based particles, both of which put a heavier strain on the engine than ever before. In essence, getting better performance with more in the way of effects means sacrificing the overall pixel workload - something PS3 owners aren’t exactly unfamiliar too.

Looking at the screenshot above, you can easily see that the 360 game commands a slight, but noticeable lead in sharpness. The reduction in both horizontal and vertical resolution clearly impacts on overall image quality, resulting in a slightly blurrier look, and fuzzy edges being present on far-away objects. However, in motion the two look far more alike, and from some 5 feet away on a 32” screen, the PS3 game only looks slightly softer. The quality of the scaling is still incredibly good, and compared to the PC version you can see that both PS3 and 360 builds are fairly close to each other.

Despite the sub-HD nature of the framebuffer, Black Ops still looks relatively clean and reasonably sharp as a whole in motion. While many have stated that the game looks worse in this regard than MW2, this is actually down to Treyarch’s dark and gritty art style more than the technical make-up of the game itself. The clinical nature of Inifinity Ward’s own art is replaced with something partially more organic, rougher in appearance. On the 360 build the actual resolution, and most of the underlying tech is presented in the same way, bar the obvious improvements.

As already mentioned, the use of MSAA helps in mitigating intrusive upsclaing artefacts, whilst the edge smoothing it provides deals with most jaggies fairly effectively. There is still some shimmering that occurs in the trees and surrounding foliage in many environments - naturally thin stripes of geometry, such as fences and powerlines are affected, suffering from sub-pixel aliasing. Although, this is nothing to be overly concerned about.


Thankfully, much of the game remains almost like for like in most areas. As with MW2, texture detail for example, is pretty much identical across the board, with only a few genuinely lower res textures appearing on the PS3.

Most of the differences apparent in screenshots actually stem from a texture streaming issue on the PS3, whereby mip-map transitions are a little behind. The actual assets used are for the most part, identical, with only a few lower res textures to be found here and there in places. You can clearly see this when both versions are running side by side, where these texture transitions are also visible on the 360, but not quite so often.

On the other hand, in terms of texture filtering, we can see that the 360 build features slightly better AF (anisontropic filtering) at all times, in keeping with the change introduced in MW2.

Previously, on past COD titles it was the PS3 versions that always had a filtering advantage owing to the RSX GPU having more texturing units than 360’s Xenos. Effectively, this meant that high levels of AF were virtually free on Sony’s system. Whereas on 360 similar quality was only obtainable by using a combination of AF plus a bilinear or trilinear solution. This is now reversed in Black Ops, as it was in MW2. And as a result detail is indeed visible for further into the distance on the 360.


The use of sub-HD framebuffers has always been a staple for the COD series on consoles, and the new texture streaming tech introduced in MW2 clearly helps both versions maintain a similar level of high quality artwork throughout. However, in terms of particle and alpha effects the 360 usually sees a near continuous advantage. The exception of course was with Modern Warfare 2, which was the first game in the series to even things up with equal size buffers across both platforms.

Looking at Black Ops, and things seem to have taken a step back. The increase in smoke, particles, and fire effects all eat into each systems available bandwidth, and with the PS3 having less of that particular resource available, it means that a few cut backs have been made in order to sustain overall performance.

On the PS3 all these effects are rendered in a lower resolution to the rest of the frame. Whereas on the other hand, 360 owners get the same level of graphical fidelity on these objects as seen in past COD titles – full res buffers. The differences can be seen above for those interested: you can clearly see that the effects look softer and less defined in the PS3 game due their resolution being reduced.

Of course this is a common trade-off for owners of many AAA PS3 titles. Rather than sacrificing the amount of objects being rendered on-screen, developers usually choose to either: render certain objects in a lower resolution to the rest of the frame, or to render them in a half-resolution of sorts using A2C for blending, introducing shimmery screen-door artefacts into the mix.

For Black Ops it is the former we are seeing, and the choice made in terms of preserving quality was definitely the right one. The developers have taken the time to carefully blend all alpha effects in the PS3 game order to ensure that as little shimmering or aliasing takes place as possible. Aside from the odd bit of pixelation, in motion (at regular viewing distances) these differences are likely to go un-noticed for many people.


Looking at performance, when it comes to a Call Of Duty game, maintaining 60fps is absolutely paramount, and the sacrifices made with regards to both the overall framebuffer, and the use of lower res alpha effects are an essential part of trying to achieve that goal.

In effect, without that 60fps update COD would be just another arcadey military shooter with large set pieces, and the tendency to rip-off various action movies/famous war flicks. So, it goes without saying that the reduced resolution on both platforms, and lower res effects on the PS3 are a worthy trade-off in meeting that goal.

To that end, on the 360 Black Ops manages to largely hit its target 60fps for much of the time, but with frequent drops throughout the entire single-player campaign. Most of these drops are so subtle in nature, that you may not notice them. And even when the game noticeably approaches framerates in the 30-40fps mark, the action always seems smooth and incredibly fluid.

Controller latency does indeed increase slightly, but not to detrimental levels – the action always feels smooth even when the framerate is noticeably running below the desired 60fps.

In terms of the larger framerate drops, they tend to occur in scenes with high levels of environmental detail, or when there is heavy use of alpha going on. In these kinds of scenarios the game regularly drops down well below the 60fps mark, though it maintains for the most part, an update above that of the more common 30fps.

Moving on to the PS3, and we can see the same trend occurring through the first few levels. Black Ops starts off confidently, running at the targeted 60fps with relative ease, although this begins to drop considerably in areas with more detail putting a greater load on system resources. In almost like for like scenarios the PS3 game perhaps lingers behind by around 10 to 20fps or so, in a rough estimation of what I am seeing.

Outside of the gameplay, and things are even more pronounced - during cut-scenes the 360 game runs at a near constant 60fps, with very little slowdown whatsoever. On PS3 however, the framerate has a tendency to drop regularly, but not always in a smooth fashion – the cut scenes often stutter, almost like the game’s framerate was bouncing up and down in small increments.

Despite the differences in performance during gameplay, both versions end up feeling smooth and extremely fluid, just with the 360 game commanding a noticeable lead on many occasions. The PS3 version, even during times of slow down, still feels very responsive, and the drops down to 30fps aren’t quite as bad as they sound. However, neither version manages to lock down a constant 60fps, with regular dips happening according to the action on screen. In this respect MW2 is clearly superior in this regard.

On the plus side both versions are solidly v-synced and exhibit no screen tearing of any kind, which is in itself impressive, if not another trademark of the series highly optimised 60fps game engine.


Outside of performance, and we can see that the overall rendering engine has seen some considerable upgrades for Black Ops. Most noticeably there is an increase in use of dynamic lighting and shadowing, first expanded upon greatly in MW2, and the use of better surface shaders on the characters. Normal mapping also looks to have been refined slightly as well.

Dynamic lighting and shadowing is now more abundant on both versions. Gunfire, explosions, and fire etc, light up the surrounding environment to a larger degree than before, whilst use of dynamic, and self-shadowing creates a greater level of depth to the scene. Examples can be found all through the game - the fan in the bar at the beginning, and the rotating emergency lights on the ceiling in another mission showcase these improvements early on, whilst the second Vietnam stage (set in the jungle and caves) demonstrates this effortlessly.

In terms of shadowing, the 360 build benefits from not only high-resolution shadows, but also better shadow filtering as well. By contrast shadows are rendered in a lower resolution on the PS3, often looking rather blurry, and occasionally quite pixelated. Like with the use of lower resolution particle and alpha effects, the reduction in shadow quality has been done to save on memory bandwidth, thus allowing the full range of graphical improvements to be included without cutting back on their scope and visual range.

The only exception to this appears to be with the amount of bloom lighting on screen. Bloom has been paired back on both versions from earlier COD titles, and in Black Ops the effect has been even more reduced on the PS3. However, this appears to be more down to gamma and contrast differences between both versions. Although, even when adjusting the in-game brightness slider, and the brightness control on my calibrated HDTV, I still wasn’t able to get a complete like for like match.

This gamma/brightness issue made the PS3 version of the game appear slightly more washed out than the 360 version. It seems that even when calibrtation to both the game's brightness and the HDTV settings have taken place, overall contrast is still reduced on the PS3.

Other than that, both versions are largely like for like in pretty much every other area. Resolution aside there’s very little that has been actively cut back on, instead the developers have preferred to render in a lower resolution on PS3 and maintain the amount of visual spectacle seen in the 360 build.


In terms of multi-platform development, achieving parity on both platforms whilst pushing the tech forwards even further on, Treyarch’s effort here is indeed commendable despite not reaching IW’s high point with MW2. The engine itself has seen a number of carefully implemented, and thoroughly skilled deployments, from an obvious increase in the use of dynamic lighting and shadowing, to the presence of more advanced skin shaders and overall character modelling. The tech is solid, as it is impressive.

Perhaps the only thing which doesn’t have the same level of impact, is with regards to the overall quality of the PS3 version of the game, which does indeed suffer from the traditional lowering of FB resolution and alpha effects buffers. That said, ‘suffering’ is maybe too strong a word to use, as whatever such improvements were implemented, every one of those are stretching memory requirements on both systems – it just so happens that overall memory constraints (especially bandwidth) is simply more of an issue for PS3 development in general.

But for a game that is so doggedly built around 360’s high bandwidth, fast EDRAM, to see pretty much all of the improvements on the PS3, even if they are in a lower resolution is an impressive feat nonetheless. The reduced screen resolution is one thing that does disappoint – it is indeed noticeable. And the framerate, which has taken a bigger hit than before, could be substantially better.

That said, Black Ops is still well worth picking up on the PS3, and for many, most of the graphical differences will absolutely fail to register. If you have access to both platforms however, then there is no contest: the 360 version, with its higher resolution FB and effects, smoother framerate and sharper image is the one to get.

In conclusion, Call of Duty: Black Ops is a worthy combination of graphical compromises interwoven with impressive underlying tech, that which, for the most part comes out shining incredibly well as a whole. Given the make-up of the engine, and the load being pushed on screen, I couldn’t have seen it going any other way with regards to platform parity. But at least the end result is overly solid and well balanced - the baseline tech and assets haven’t been cut back on.

As ever thanks go out to AlStrong for counting those pixels, and to Cynamite.de for the screens.

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: Star Wars Force Unleashed II Demo (PS3 vs 360)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II has already impressed us with its custom anti-aliasing solution. On Friday we took a look at the title’s use of DLAA and how it impacts on the overall image quality present in the game, focusing on the 360 demo and analysing some direct-feed pre-release screenshots for our report. Since then I’ve had a chance to get a hold of both demos (PS3 and 360), and I have to say the results are pretty impressive.

Interesting to say the least, is that SWFU II is the first game that we know of that actively uses a custom method of anti-aliasing across all platforms, whilst also taking the time to implement PS3 specific adaptations of certain visual effects (notion blur and shader effects), which result in tangible improvements to the Sony version of the game. Some of these differences are indeed subtle, and the 360 version gets its own plus points too. However SWFU II also manages to look and perform almost identically across both formats, being far closer than anyone first expected.


Just to recap, we can see that SWFU II is using the custom DLAA technique for edge smoothing on both platforms. The results are clearly apparent in the screenshots on this page. Pretty much most of the game’s jagged lines are taken care of, being smoothed over in a way that is far superior than that of traditional MSAA solutions. The look is undoubtedly similar to Santa Monica Studio’s implementation of MLAA in God Of War 3, although not quite as clean and artifact free.

Initially the use of DLAA gives the game a somewhat soft, almost sub-HD appearance. However, when zoomed in we can see that the edge steps on each pixel are the same, and it is apparent that despite the blur, SWFU II is indeed rendering in 720p on both formats.

The dark, low contrast nature of the demo means that the edge smoothing is never properly stress tested, and that nearly all offending edges are handled with relative ease. In terms of artifacting caused by how the AA works, we can still see it clearly when there is fast motion occurring on screen, and in particular when the use of motion blur is in effect. (see below)

It will be interesting to see how well the AA copes with edges in high-contrast scenes, and how much greater the extent of the artifacting will be in the final game. Although, the quality on offer here in the demo, and in the pre-release screens is still pretty impressive to say the least. The soft, but smooth look reveals a level of image quality absent in many multiplatform titles today.


Above we can see both the effect of the game’s DLAA solution in fast moving sequences, and when combined with an advanced implementation of motion blur. The use of blur clearly makes some low res artifacting stand out – a consequence of the way DLAA is implemented, but at the same time doesn’t affect IQ too much, and is mostly only subtly negative to the image.

Whilst both versions of the game feature heavy use of motion blur, it is the PS3 build which benefits from having a more refined, higher precision version of the effect. Initially it looks like the blur has been paired back slightly on the PS3. However, when looking a little closer, you can actually see that the blur preserves more detail when compared to its implementation on the 360.

The reason for this difference is that for the PS3 build the developers at Lucas Arts are actually running the effect over several of the CELL processor’s SPU’s, benefiting from the advantages of heavy parallelism and the results that it provides. By contrast the effect is being done on the GPU in the 360 game, with less overall processing being available to maintain such high levels of precision.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen such an effect benefit from using the PS3’s SPU’s. Uncharted 2 did a similar thing with its motion blur effect, spreading the processing load over five SPU’s to better maximise overall performance, and to obtain greater precision.


Other than running the motion blur algorithm on the PS3’s CELL processor, there’s little else in the game that benefits from such specialised offloading of graphics tasks, although, without speaking to the developers directly we can’t know for sure.

There are however, other rendering differences between the two versions of the game. During cut-scenes it is apparent that the 360 build gains a slight edge, having slightly more detailed textures on parts of the characters - possibly slightly higher-res in nature, and slightly better surface shaders.

Looking at the cut-scenes for instance, Starkiller obviously features more detailed wrinkles on his face on the 360 – a result of some higher-res texturing, and better normal map blending. In particular his face has moving creases absent from the PS3 build, due to the 360 version having additional normal maps being blended together to create this effect.

This seems to be more down to a memory bandwidth issue on PS3 than anything else, as more intricate details are only visible in the cut-scenes and not during actual gameplay. The use of additional normal maps can eat into available texture memory, which appears to be the cause here.

There is an unexplained oddity however. Lightsabres appear to have a slightly fatter appearance on the PS3, compared to a skinnier look on 360. It looks like the glow effect on the PS3 is benefiting from additional shaders, and possibly texture changes. Quite why though, I’m not too sure. But the effect is noticeable during both gameplay and cut-scenes, and can be seen in the screenshot above.



For the most part, during gameplay things generally look like-for-like across both platforms, with almost equal amounts of texturing, shaders, and lighting. Occasional things are still subtly noticeable, like what looks like better specular effects on certain parts of the PS3 game, although this is more down to rendering differences than any specific advantages cross platform. Sometimes these things may look ever so slightly different, but one version certainly isn’t better than the other.

Still, texture detail in both versions itself isn’t all that great, sometimes being lower-res in nature, though this is nicely offset by plentiful use of normal mapping. Most surfaces in the game feature this effect, and it really helps to convey a sense of more detail in the overall image. It’s clear that the developers are simply balancing out memory cost issues of rendering an array of shaders and post process effects by using lower-res textures and plenty of normal maps, in creating a detailed look to the whole scene.


One thing that does stand out though, whilst looking pretty cool, is the lighting: it’s reasonably accomplished and sees plenty of scope throughout this opening level. Your force powers in particular cast light on surrounding surfaces, along with being reflected. Plus the entire environment is full of real-time light sources, which work well in this dark and stormy scene. Some of these are dynamic in nature, whilst others appear pre-baked using traditional shadow maps.

Strangely it looks like your light sabre is only reflected in the environment, although the light given off is not. In one particular area your lightsabre is reflected on both the floor and surrounding wall, but no real-time lighting is present with its use. This appears to be mainly confined to indoor areas of the game.

Complementing the blend of real-time lighting and baked shadowing, SWFU2 throws in SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) into the mix, bringing a greater sense of depth to the scene. Its implementation is both clean and virtually artifact free.

The look of the rain itself is also pretty impressive, engulfing the scene and creating a dark and forboding atmosphere remanicient of that from near the end of Episode III – where Anakin Skywalker makes the transformation from Dark Jedi to Darth Vader. However from a tech point of view it is relatively simple. The rain is essentially created by using a series of moving texture maps, which are arranged into basic, randomly occuring strips, with alpha coverage for transparency. It is convincing without demanding much in the way of rendering time.


So while much of the game is basically like for like, arguably reaching parity, and with the PS3 version seeing some small rendering benefits through custom use of the CELL processor’s SPU’s, it is the 360 game which commands a small lead in terms of performance.

SWFU2 basically runs at a maximum of 30fps for most of the time, dropping framerate when the engine comes under stress, and losing v-sync in order to preserve overall smoothness. Both versions only suffer from small, sometimes barely noticeable drops in framerate, although it is the 360 build which fares a little better.

The PS3 demo drops from its targeted 30fps slightly more often than the 360 one, tearing more frames as the engine attempts to keep up with rendering the next frame. Most of the time the worst bouts of tearing will often occur in quiet, enclosed indoor spaces in which there is little going on (on both formats) – moving and turning the camera is the main culprit here. Whereas on the 360 things are a little more stable, with less small drops occurring, and noticeably less tearing, regardless of situation.

In any case both versions exhibit mild screen tearing and drops in framerate, although it is the 360 build which remains the most consistent, with little to no noticeable drops in framerate throughout. That said putting things into perspective, when concentrating on playing the game these differences don’t exactly come to the forefront of the experience. Screen tearing in particular is often barely visible during the dark, low contrast outside scenes, and appears briefly for only a split second or so, and the drops in framerate can often be so small as to go unnoticed.

In the end neither version really deviates that far from maintaining a solid 30fps, with the 360 having a small, but still visible advantage in this area, and with having subtler, less noticeable levels of screen tearing – usually next to none during outside gameplay scenes. However, both versions are more than acceptable in this regard, and the slight issues present don’t take away anything from either game, meaning that both demos generally perform well.


After our initial look at the game on last Friday, it is apparent that Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II is way ahead of the first game – it looks far, far better for sure, and overall performance across both formats is a distinctly more closely matched affair. The use of DLAA on both versions, and the higher precision motion blur on the PS3 is most impressive, delivering a smooth, albeit soft look to the proceedings.

While it is indeed too early to tell how well the AA will fare in the final game, in which high contrast areas could have a detrimental affect on image quality, with larger amounts of visible artifacting, and lesser levels of successful edge smoothing, the demo nonetheless is a promising starting point.

Visually the rest of the game’s graphical make up is well balanced, mildly playing to the strengths of each format without breaking overall parity, and showcasing to developers that the PS3 needn’t be on the receiving end of another sub-par port. Although, this is just the demo. And in the confines of small spaces, and given the lack of any real scene-busting action, the finished product may different significantly, especially with regards to performance.

That said however, things are indeed looking good, and the game’s blend of DLAA, motion blur, and a range of nicely integrated shader effects sure makes for an interesting concoction. But I guess we’ll have to wait until the finished game to find out the final results. If we get suitable screenshots (I'm definitely going to have access to both games, guaranteed), then look out for a follow-up report.

Thanks go out to Dominic Eskofier and the team at Cynamite.de for the screens. The full gallery of uncompressed shots can be found here.