Tech Analysis: Vanquish Demo (360 vs PS3)

We all remember the travesty that was the PS3 version of Bayonetta. It was hardly the best example of solid multiplatform development, instead representing exactly what happens when a publisher chooses to take a game perfectly designed around the advantages of one platform’s unique specifics, and converting it to another without doing the same.

On one hand you had the sublime 360 version of the game, complete with full resolution alpha and particle effects, detailed, vibrantly coloured textures, and a fluid 60fps framerate. On the other, there was the distinctly sub-par PS3 game, with its washed out textures, lower resolution effects buffers, and a framerate that was for the most part cut in half.

The game’s lavishly detailed nature, in combination with so many high res alpha effects was ideally suited to the huge amount of bandwidth provided by the EDRAM situated on the 360’s GPU, but was a poor fit for the PS3’s bandwidth starved RSX in its original form. Of course this shameful port was nothing to do with the game’s original creators Platinum Games. Instead it was converted and shipped out by a team at Sega, who wanted a PS3 version of the game out shortly after the 360 game’s release in Japan.

Thankfully for Vanquish, Platinum Games are at the helm of both versions of the game, and have developed it from the ground up – using the Bayonetta engine no less – optimising it in a way that takes advantage of both platforms without being more tailored for one than the other. In short, they have achieved an impressive example of platform parity, in which the PS3 build is every bit as solid and technically accomplished as the 360 one.

Arguably, there have been some noticeable changes in regards to what the engine is rendering on screen to make this happen; not least of all the slightly sub HD resolution of the game, along with the toned down use of alpha effects. Although this in it self is no bad thing, and is required for parity to be reached without large differences between builds. What is commendable, is that the development team at Platinum Games not only understood what needed to be done for their next venture, but that they have achieved it whilst still creating a visually impressive experience with plenty of intense action.



Seeing as Vanquish features a wealth of more advanced shader effects and post processing than Bayonetta, the game effectively renders in 1024x720 on both platforms in order to keep performance up, with edge smoothing being available through the use of 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing).

What is impressive is the fact that Platinum Games have managed to get anti-aliasing up and running on both platforms to an equal standard, and that the vast majority of alpha effects are rendered in full resolution matching the framebuffer – fire being the only one which sticks out as being slightly lower. And that’s also on both PS3 and 360.

The use of 1024x720 with 2xMSAA means that the FB just about squeezes into the 360’s 10MB of EDRAM, and that given the tweaks made to the underlying engine doesn’t put too much of a strain on PS3 performance, other than in heavy load situations, in which both versions suffer. In fact, as you will find out later, it is the PS3 game which initially fares a little better in this area.



As you can see in our screenshots, both versions look pretty much identical with only very subtle differences between them. The PS3 game appears to be a tad sharper, whilst the 360 version appears a little more pristine overall. Though most of the time they really do look the same in motion. It is likely that the ever so slightly cleaner look of the 360 build is down to the machine featuring a better scaler contained within its GPU, compared to the relatively poor horizontal scaler found PS3’s RSX, which simply features a bilinear solution. Although in this case there’s hardly anything between the two.

Brightness levels also appear to be slightly different on both versions, as does the look of the shadowing. Although it isn’t a case of one looking better than the other, with any differences being down to the way both machines respective GPU’s deals with certain effects. For example, in terms of the shadowing, both the PS3 and 360 versions actually use the same type of filtering, though it does seem to be implemented a little differently.

You could also point out that the lighting looks a tad washed out on the PS3 game, however that is as much due to the gamma differences between the two consoles video outputs than any technical limitations. In any case the precision of the lighting is the same on both versions, and adjusting the RGB settings for HDMI on PS3 and 360, along with your TV settings, helps bring this into line.

Either way it is safe to say that Vanquish looks as good on the PS3 as it is on the 360, with no glaring differences to be found like the ones so easily apparent in Bayonetta. Things like texture detail and filtering are the same across both versions, as is the use of post processing effects and alpha buffers for transparencies, so it’s basically like for like.



In our early tech report of the game we found that some of Vanquish’s pre-release screenshots had huge amounts of post-processing visible, some of which we thought would never make it into the actual game. Well, as it turns out most of it is in fact correct and present in the demo, although without being enhanced specifically for supersampled PR bullshots.

Here we have some impressive screen distortion effects, coupled with per-object motion blur rarely seen outside of the PC space, but that is becoming ever more feasible on consoles as developers find new ways to optimise their engines even closer to suiting the hardware.

Like with the rendering resolution and use of AA, post processing looks identical on both PS3 and 360, with the cool motion blur effect helping in making the game’s 30fps update appear smoother than it actually is.



So far what we’ve discovered about Vanquish is par the course for parity, with pretty much every area of the game looking the same on both platforms. Impressively, the PS3 version has had nothing in the way of visual cut-backs, even having proper MSAA and full res alpha buffers, which is a testement to Platinum Games’ resolve about getting their flagship engine working identically across both platforms.

Interestingly, the developers were actually quoted as saying that the PS3 was the lead platform for Vanquish, and that they were optimising the engine to ensure that any differences would not be detrimental to the overall experience – something they have managed to achieve in a very short space of time. But is there anything that points to that fact being apparent in the way Vanquish as been built up to operate?

Nothing conclusive, I have to say. Although we can see that texture detail has been paired back from Bayonetta; no doubt to save on memory in order to keep things the same on PS3, and that the use of alpha heavy effects has also been cut down on slightly. However the game’s the use of far more advanced shaders and lighting, with some computationally heavy post process effects (per-object motion blur) clearly circumvents this, providing a more impressive visual range but in vastly different areas.

Also, by rendering in 1024x720 with 2xMSAA, and at 30fps, in addition to the changes made with regards to particle and alpha buffers, Platinum Games have allowed for their engine to comfortably fit in with the bandwidth and processing requirements of both consoles, and especially the bandwidth limited PS3, and have built upon these limitations by enhancing the game’s visuals in ways that work within these constraints.



Going back to our comparison of the game itself, we can see that performance across both platforms is far more closely matched than with Bayonetta. In fact, it’s pretty damn near identical most of the time, being one of the best examples of cross platform development we have seen so far alongside Dante’s Inferno and Burnout Paradise.

For Vanquish Platinum Games has targeted a 30fps update rather than going for the more preferable, eye-blazing 60fps found in many Japanese titles, and the decision was definitely the right one. In the case of Vanquish, where the engine is throwing around all kinds of advanced effects and heavy amounts of post processing, having the game maintain a smooth 60fps update would have been next to impossible, and the extra work would have almost certainly impacted on the PS3 version of the game.

Going for 30fps means that not only do both versions maintain a smoother framerate for longer, but also that the developers have managed to implement v-sync on both platforms with differing methods of preventing screen-tear.



Indeed, both versions hit their target framerate for most of the experience, only slowing down slightly when there is an over abundance of stuff happening on screen at once. Although throughout the demo, in the busier sections before facing up to the boss, it is the PS3 version which manages to drops less frames than the 360 one, appearing slightly smoother during general play as a result. These drops are pretty small on both platforms, mainly going down to around 25fps or so for brief moments, or maybe even less for the most part.

During the boss battle things appear to be reversed with the 360 build commanding a slight, but noticeable lead over the PS3 game. In this section the framerate drops down to at least 20fps on the PS3 when the action is at its most intense, whereas on 360, the framerate, although dropping down noticeably is slightly steadier.

Without using video capture equipment we cannot be any more specific, but overall it definitely feels like the PS3 version was slightly smoother for the most part, and that the smaller drops in framerate were less noticeable than on the 360 - the boss battle aside of course.


We mentioned earlier than Platinum Games had managed to implement v-sync across both platforms for Vanquish, and the results are very impressive; the game practically never features any screen tearing on the 360, and absolutely none on the PS3. Interestingly, the way both games deal with screen tear also has a small, but barely noticeable impact on how each version controls.

I’m pretty certain that some kind of frame buffering technique is being used here, especially on the PS3 build which not only demonstrates ever so slightly more controller lag, but also nothing in the way of tearing.

For those who don’t know, triple and double-buffering is a method of rendering multiple versions of the same frame, which are then held in reserved just in case one of them is torn. When this happens the torn frame is replaced with the next one, which should hopefully be clean. As tearing is really only visible when multiple frames are torn this results in an effective method of reducing screen tear altogether when failing to maintain v-sync. In the case of triple buffering, you hold two frames in reserve rather than just one.

My best guess is that the PS3 game is being triple buffered, and that the 360 is using the slightly lesser double buffered approach seeing as it has less lag and practically no visible screen tear. Using double buffering would also consume less memory, which would be better suited for the framebuffer being limited by the system’s 10MB EDRAM.

Saying that, any screen tearing that occurs in the 360 game is so minor and incredibly hard to spot – even when looking for it, that it’s practically not worth mentioning. I could only see it for a fraction of a second on occasion, and that was when carefully looking for it.


In the end both versions perform largely identically with only small differences between them. The 360 game drops less frames in the most intense situations, whilst the PS3 game is more consistently smooth overall, only faring worse in heavy load areas, such as the boss battle. Screen tear isn’t an issue for either build, and the PS3’s use of triple buffering doesn’t affect controller responsiveness to any noticeable degree during regular play. In fact it is the PS3 version of the game that actually just pushes ahead, looking slightly smoother, and sharper overall, though without commanding anything more than the subtlest of leads.

There’s no doubt that Platinum Games have really taken the time and effort to get both versions of the game looking and operating near identically, to the extent that either one is well worth picking on release regardless of platform preference or past experiences.

Perhaps all that’s left to say is that this is just the demo code of the game, and that there’s still over a month to go until the final release build is shipped. Seeing as I’ll definitely be buying at least one copy of the Vanquish upon release, I will endeavour to get a hold of both versions at some point soon after launch for quick look at what, if anything has changed. Until then it looks like both versions will come highly recommended, whilst also representing another stellar example of multiplatform parity that few developers manage to achieve.

Thanks to Mr Deap for our comparison screens, and AlStrong for the pixel counting.

Gran Turismo 5 To Feature 10GB HDD Installation

If you’re anything like me then you’ll always install PS3 games onto the hard drive if there’s an option available. Loading times are just another one of those things – along with poor texture filtering – that you just thought you’d see the back of with each progressing console generation. But like with image quality, there is always a reason, or two, for it to crop up again when least expected.

For Gran Turismo 5 Sony are once again providing an additional install option on top of simply being able to simply pop the disc into the drive and play the game. According to Kazunori Yamauchi (via his Twitter page) GT5’s installation feature will allow for a ‘smooth’ experience, but at the expense of a whopping 10 gigabytes of HDD space – double that of previous PS3 games.

If you just want to play the game, then you’ll only need a paltry 256 megabytes in order to do so. But then I imagine that loading times will be far more noticeable without the installation.

But what of Yamauchi’s ‘smooth’ quote? What could he possibly mean by that? Well, to be fair, those expecting some kind of framerate boost, or better performance in 1080p are going to be disappointed, as it's likely that GT5’s producer simply meant that quicker loading times would mean less noticeable break up between sections of play than if you didn’t install the game.

There’s nothing worse than having a lengthy session of loading screens between some highly impressive, fast-paced racing, and Yamauchi knows this. If nothing else having shorted load times will make for a more seamless experience, one which could be described as ‘smooth’, and very much the opposite of a more jarring ‘stop-start’ nature often caused by poor data management and long loading screens.

Nevertheless, 10 gigabytes is a huge file size, and it will be interesting to see just how much of a difference such a large install will make.

Sony Announces New Slim PS3 Models

In what could been seen as a reactionary move by Sony is there ever was one, the company announced at their press conference at this year’s Gamescom in Cologne, Germany that they were planning to replace the two current models of Slim PS3 with ones containing larger hard drives.

The existing 120GB console is to be replaced by a slightly larger 160GB model, and the 250GB one gets upgraded to 320GB. The pricing structure for both machines is to remain the same as the current models. So expect to pay £249.99 for the 160GB version, and £284.99 for the 320GB one.

While these newer models are due to arrive in stores from 15th September, Sony also point out that there might be a cross over with old stock as the old models are phased out, meaning that it is likely that some places may be run additional ‘clearance’ deals for those not too fussed by having a smaller amount of storage capacity.

Currently, PS3 sales are officially standing at 38 million worldwide, whilst the 360, on 41.2 million, leads by a small margin. However, in Europe the situation is reversed with Sony commanding the largest lead in console sales between the PS3 and the 360 in any territory. With this in mind Sony’s Andrew House commented that the launch of these new models of PS3 was to ‘maintain leadership’ in that particular territory.

After the slow start in sales following the launch of the PS3 in March 2007 in Europe for a whopping £425, it appears Sony is well and truly back on track with the PlayStation brand, and that means the battle can only get more interesting from here on out. Perhaps now’s the right time for the company to turn their attention around to the ailing PSP brand, and the inevitable PSP2.

Tech Analysis: Mafia II Demo (PS3 vs 360)

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tech Analysis: Singularity (PS3 vs 360)

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

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



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

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


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

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Hands-On: Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days (PS3)

You know the original Kane & Lynch was another one of those titles I’d rather forget, a game which not only failed to live up to its potential but also seemed oblivious to its failings, almost like it was content with merely being an idea, a proof of concept without proper execution. Coming from the developers of the successful, but slowly fading Hitman series we should have expected something much better, a title that maybe wasn’t so filled with sloppy control issues, poor AI, and repetitive online play.

Perhaps what is so surprising about this sequel, is that it manages to rectify a whole lot of problems found in the original creating a vastly more polished experience overall. Playing the brief demo for Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days is quite an eye-opener when you look at just how much has been changed, and that what you have standing right in front of you is a largely different game on the whole.


Rather than resting on their laurels IO Interactive have managed to address many of the issues and concerns we had about K&L whilst also expanding on the atmosphere which worked so well the last time around with a new unique look that is as gritty and grimy as the game’s two lead protagonists. Set deep within the chaos of the Hong Kong underground, the developers have created a more tightly controlled, intense kind of game; a fast-paced third-person shooter reminiscent of a good John Woo actioner, making things all the more enjoyable as a result.

One of the main improvements with this sequel is that it runs a staggering 60 frames per-second most of the time, with only a few expected bouts of slowdown. The use of having such a high frame rate goes beyond making the game look reasonably impressive compared to the original, instead also improving the controller responsiveness and providing faster paced action overall. Upon booting up K&L2 this is immediately obvious; running around and swiftly getting that first headshot is faster and more immediate than before. Your level of control is improved not only in how quickly you can react, but also how accurate you can become at high speed.


Changes to the cover system also help in maintaining this fluidity. It is now possible to quickly move in and out of cover by pushing the ‘Cross’ button, or to move out by pushing on the analogue stick in the opposite direction to whatever your wedged hard up against. The system works pretty well, and is an improvement over the first Kane & Lynch, although isn’t as responsive or as manoeuvrable as the one found in Gears of War and Uncharted 2. I didn’t have any problems getting into cover, and then popping out and blasting a few enemies in the face before running towards the next suitable spot after a few minutes of play. Although things could be improved as there were times when I’d become stuck for a brief second or so in cover after pushing the required button to dislodge myself.

Gameplay-wise K&L2 is a much faster paced affair than the original. It really feels like the developers at IO Interactive have taken a leaf from Call Of Duty’s rulebook, specifically Modern Warfare’s. The way enemies pop up from behind cover and move between areas in order to flank you appears much like in Infinity Ward’s title. The same thing applies when they accurately take aim and attempt to gun you down with varying degrees of success, with foes constantly bestowing damage upon you if you get too careless, adding even more to the game's atmosphere and attempt at realism. Surprisingly, the constant duck and cover, run and gun nature of the game works very well, never feeling tired or strained throughout the limited time offered in the demo.

The action isn’t quite as furious as it is in Infinity Ward’s title, although is very smooth, and incredibly polished at the same time. Originality though is the one thing the game lacks, and in this case there’s very little outside the YouTube style presentation to set it apart from other comparable titles. Except perhaps the framerate, which improves things to no end, fully justifying the steep graphics cutbacks that have occurred in making this possible.


If there is one major complaint to be found however, then it’s with regards to the enemy AI. During various points throughout the demo I had several enemies jump out from behind cover and begin to run circles around Kane, while at the same time I could stay in my current cover position gunning them down as they did so. Not only that, when going around in circles they effectively failed to attack either me or my partner, instead looking like they had gone a little bit mad in the process.

This definitely needs to be cleaned up before release as not only does it make the game look a bit silly, it also breaks some of the atmosphere in the process. What they need to do is keep in some of the cool stuff; like how enemies pop in and out of cover, quickly moving to different spots trying to flush you out, whilst getting rid of the annoying glitches that break the illusion of a intensely staged gunfight.

Some of the NPC’s also suffer from quite stilted and stiff animations. These look rather outdated and much like the kind found in various on-rails arcade shooters. However, both lead characters move with much greater fluidity and rarely suffer from the same problems, with only occasional animations that appear out of place, or a little odd.


Visually, K&L2 looks reasonably impressive with regards to its smooth framerate but also has issues in other areas, mostly surrounding the game’s incredibly soft, and often fuzzy look. It is apparent that in order to achieve 60fps that the developers have sacrificed overall screen resolution, and in that respect the game falls down. K&L2 is decidedly sub-HD, with upscale artefacts being visible at most times and jaggies crawling the many clean lines on display. The varying inclusion of different filters used to create a security camera style look to the game, although a pretty nice touch adding even more atmosphere to the game, also do little to hide the low rendering resolution, and instead make things appear even softer and more undefined.

That said the grimy, understated, YouTube-esque screen presentation of the title fits in well with the characters and world that the developers are trying to create. The shady underworld of Kong Kong isn’t meant to look vivid, saturated and full of colour, its tone instead balanced against two unattractive and vile lead protagonists who would do equally as well at playing the role of the bad guys in this experience. Another cool touch is the ‘buffering’ message displayed when the game is loading, again adding that sense of being in a live surveillance feed of sorts.


So far, Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days is shaping up to be a huge improvement over the first game, and seems like a largely enjoyable experience from the small sample offered up to us in the demo. The much faster-paced gameplay reminiscent of a third-person Call Of Duty makes the whole package feel tighter and far more exciting than before. While the unexpected decision to target 60fps makes for a smoother, more graphically impressive and responsive game as a result.

A few flaws still remain, such as the dodgy enemy AI, and the stiff animations of the NPC’s, which feel rather outdated. But if both of these issues were ironed out by the time of the game’s release in late August, then there shouldn’t be all that much to complain about. Bar perhaps the low-resolution nature of the game, and the fact that the two lead characters are still initially as unlikeable as ever, spouting a myriad of abuse whilst keeping their stark moral indifference to the world intact.

Hopefully, IO Interactive will surprise us with that last one. This is supposed to be Lynch’s story after all - something far more personal, so we expect to see some kind of humanity to be brought to the surface of the character at some point. After all he isn’t a militarily trained killer like Kane, instead being a far more wild and uncontrolled type. Dare I say more emotional, and arguably this provides at least a good starting point to get underneath and into the inner workings driving him to this kind of lifestyle.

That is of course, if the script writing and characterisation is as good as the gameplay. But I guess we’ll just have to wait in order to find out.

Tech Report: A Look At LBP2's Graphical Upgrades

Despite being a platformer with a slightly cutesy disposition, Little Big Planet is no stranger to technical excellence. You might not think that just by looking at it, but under the hood the original LBP was as interesting from a tech point of view as it was from a gameplay perspective.

Little Big Planet 2 then, appears to be much the same in this regard; the characteristic real-world physics of the title so integral to the very core of the game backed up by some impressive, and downright interesting engine enhancements. This is precisely the reason for us to be taking an extended look at the title. What we have here could almost be described as a full tech analysis of sorts, but in reality it’s more of a small glimpse, and dare I say, intriguing update into what media Molecule are doing with this sequel.

The first thing to notice, obviously, when going over the screenshots is the abundance of clean lines and smooth looking edges, or rather the distinct lack of any jaggies spoiling the scene. Now you might be thinking ‘supersampled’ when seeing the quality of the screens, and initially that’s exactly how I felt about the situation. However, this isn’t actually the case as all the screens you see on this page are direct-feed captures rendering in native 720p (1280x720), and are not downsampled from a higher resolution, as is usually the case with most PR shots released to the press.

The reason for the game’s lack of jagged lines and supersampled look then is clear - the use of morphological anti-aliasing has been implemented into the graphics engine.

Although the above anti-aliasing method has been confirmed by Media Molecule themselves you can still see some evidence of sub-pixel based jagged edges, another hint as to the inclusion of MLAA, as with supersampling this just wouldn't occur


MLAA has been featured a few times before here at IQGamer, namely when covering Santa Monica Studio’s God Of War 3, and more recently Guerrilla Games’ Killzone 3. It feels like not a month goes past without some new first-party title using the technique, a technique which is not only cost saving in terms of memory, but also in terms of securing the highest levels of image quality in a console specific release.

From the screens featured on this page it is apparent that the MLAA does far more for the image than what is possible via the more traditional MSAA, only to be beaten by supersampling (SSAA) which isn’t doable, realistically, on consoles due to the additional rendering performance incurred.

In LBP2, like with GOW3 the use of MLAA provides up to 16x MSAA coverage on some surfaces, and better than 4x on most others. The only area in which this form of AA falls down is when dealing with sub-pixel aliasing, where by any polygon edges smaller than the size of a pixel (this is a sub-pixel) receive absolutely no AA coverage at all. The same is true for MSAA as well, but not for supersampling which covers all aspects of the entire image. Regardless, this new form of anti-aliasing is a huge improvement over the 2xMSAA used in the first game.

Of course, the use of MLAA is just one part of many fundamental changes to the underlying graphics engine. For this sequel the developers have also opted for a solely forward rendering approach throughout the entire game, making transparencies and shadowing much easier to do.


Previously the original LBP used a differed solution to rendering lighting and shadowing in the game, which meant issues with displaying certain effects and also a reduction in shadow quality.

By switching to the traditional forward rendering approach this time around, the developers have been able to easily upgrade the shadowing system used in this sequel. Soft shadows are present throughout, which look much nicer than the hard-edged ones used in LPBP1, with shadows being cast for every main light source you can see, now without the need to pre-calculate them as shadowmaps like before. These soft shadows also blend in well with the game’s newly implemented use of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), which is performed in real-time along with most of the lighting and shadowing.

This use of SSAO also gives an even greater depth to the image not found in the last game, complementing the range of visual enhancements on offer.

Seeing as the computational requirements for producing such graphics effects have probably also gone up, the resolution of these shadows is still relatively low compared to the rest of the game. I’m not sure how much resolution loss is occurring, although it is apparent that all shadows look slightly softer than you’d expect them to be, especially compared to if they were rendering in same resolution to match the rest of the game.

Transparencies however, now look to be rendered in a higher resolution than the first game, using proper alpha coverage, whereas before they were rendered in a half-res of sorts using the bandwidth saving alpha-to-coverage, which lead to a slight screen-door effect being present on all objects that featured it.

The true nature of the translucency is a nice touch, and goes well with other enhancements being made to the whole particle/effects system used through the game.


From what we can see LBP2’s use of soft dynamic shadowing in combination with SSAO is undeniably impressive, providing an incredibly life-like appearance to how the whole scene is lit at any given time. The tightly woven nature of the lighting and how it commands the way shadowing occurs in the game cannot be understated, and to this the addition of a global illumination (GI) style solution adds more believability into the mix.

In LBP2 light on some stages looks like it travels down from a main point (the sun, or a singular internal light source) into the world appearing like it reflects off some objects and onto others as it shades and lights the environment. An impressive visual trick, as in reality it isn’t being done in real-time at all, but instead is a pre-calculated simulation that uses something along the lines of a lightmap, moving these around on certain surfaces to create this effect.

The illusion of proper GI, and some cleverly implemented god rays is the focus here, convincingly backing up the original LBP’s realistic lighting model. Alone, these elements are merely hot discussion points. But when all brought together they bring a real sense of naturalness and cohesion to an abstract game world, much like in the way the use of physics provides us with some tangible connectivity between the game and our own experience of reality.

There's still a disconnect for sure, seeing as the whole style and notion of the game’s world is completely off-the-wall, but in it’s own little confines feels completely organic, succinct even. And that’s perhaps Media Molecule’s biggest success, not the visual wonderment that all these effects and improvements provide, but the ability for them to casually sink in and blend together so seamlessly into being part and parcel of the experience.

Low resolution shadows aside, and maybe some stray un-anti-aliased sub-pixel edges, LBP2’s tech has seen some noticeable changes, and some ingenious solutions to problems most lesser developers tend to flake over. The game isn’t visually outstanding from a ‘wow factor’ point of view, but instead has its moment in delivering small subtleties that do more for the overall experience than just for the sheer technical hell of it.

Editorial: Why Sony Mandates 720p For 3D Gaming

Creating games in 3D is an arduous task, with the need to render two separate frames (one for each eye) baring a heavy load both on the consoles and for the developer, the quest to reach that mythical 18080p status weighing in on the back of their minds against the ever increasing demands of the consumers this generation.

The solution then, it seems, is simply not to participate in such an endeavour in the first place, instead dictating somewhat more manageable terms to developers and anyone looking to venture into the 3D space. And this is exactly what Sony are said to be doing, mandating a standard of 720p for all developers wanting to make their games in 3D.

Just a few weeks after Housemarque and Ilari Kuittinen revealed on the PlayStation Blog that they had Super Stardust HD running at 1080p and 60fps in 3D, Sony's Simon Benson recently commented at the Develop conference in Brighton that the company was planning to enforce a 720p maximum resolution mandate to developers. This means that even if you are able to get your game running at a higher resolution it will be downscaled by the machine into 720p, much like what will be happening Super Stardust HD as soon as the next PS3 firmware arrives.

The reason behind the move is simple. It’s partly due to the HDMI 1.4 specification not supporting 1080p60 officially (1080p24 is the highest it will go), and to make things easier for developers by taking the pressure off in trying to get things running in 3D at 1080p by removing the option. Perhaps that is not such a bad thing as many games struggle to render in native 720p let alone 1080p, and at 60fps that whole scenario dramatically worsens considerably.

Benson also came to this conclusion and mentioned at the conference that despite the mandate being applied to most games, some ‘more cinematic’ titles which could benefit from using a higher resolution and lower framerate would be allowed access to the 1080p24 3D rendering mode supported by the console. No games would be able to use 1080p60 even if the developers had comfortably implemented it.

Sony’s argument over the use of 1080p60 then, or rather, 1080p for 3D gaming in general seems to be directly aimed at the stresses of getting games running to that standard in the first place. Benson emphasised the difficulties that many developers would be facing and told attendees that this mandate was a way of curtailing that. A preventative measure of some sorts, restrictive but at the same time ultimately beneficial, especially when you think that having more stuff on screen at 720p is usually far more impressive than a game being cut back in order to hit 1080p.

However, rendering at 1080p60 in 3D doesn’t have to mean rendering one frame for each eye, as Crytek has shown so enthusiastically at this year’s E3. Instead it is possible to render in one single frame for 3D, like with normal 2D rendering, and to simply apply a form of 2D displacement tech to the image (2D to 3D conversion) thus creating a final 3D display without any of the usual workload involved. We talked about Cytek’s solution here, although Sony have also said in the past that they were working on something very similar.

So the question is why are Sony restricting the rendering resolution on 3D games when clearly they have, or will have in the near future, a solution which circumvents rendering two frames instead of one. Surely that in itself would make things much easier for developers without taking away another all important check-box feature. But perhaps that’s the point, that for this generation 1080p is largely just that, a check-box feature that has more use on paper than practically in games development, and when you consider the potential performance costs incurred by running in 3D then it makes perfect sense.

Either way, the removal of 1080p60 and 1080p24 does very little to harm the end user. When you consider how many titles actually use the resolution effectively, and that contain more detail and visual effects when running in this mode, you can see why the chase for the supposed holy grail that is 1080p isn’t particularly justified, and could even be described as wasted.

That said, there is no doubt that some of us out there will still salivate over the potential of seeing another title pushing that magical 1080p60 resolution on consoles. It’s an incredible feat when you see it in 2D, so how much more spectacular would it be seeing it in 3D, full 1920x1080 no less. This is not something that we will be able to tell you with Sony’s proposed plans, but is it really going to make all the difference? I suspect a resounding no is the answer.

Personally I’d much rather be seeing more titles running in full 720p and with at least 2x multisampling anti-aliasing, or morphological AA at 60fps than a misguided attempt at 1080p with absolutely none of those benefits. And judging by Sony’s reaction, and indeed Crytek’s 2D displacement tech, many developers feel the same way.

Killzone 3 To Have More Responsive Controls

Killzone 2 suffered a lot of criticism from many gamers surrounding its controller response time, as a fair few found it laggy, and somewhat inaccurate at high speed compared to the likes of Call Of Duty. Initially, it was simply believed that the developers had attempted to deliver the sensation of weight much like when physically holding each of the weapons in real life - a crude approximation if you will. Although later on it was discovered that there was more latency between button presses compared with other comparative first-person shooters.

Some sites reported that Killzone 2 featured lag up to 150ms from when pressing a button on the controller to a visible response on screen. Compare that to the likes of Halo 3, which provided just 100ms of delay, and you have an either a noticeably more sluggish experience, or a heightened sensation of weight envisioned by the development team for the title.

For the upcoming sequel Killzone 3, Guerrilla Games has been looking into the issue and aim to bring about the same sense of realism without the lag that so many found intrusive to the experience.

Via the official site Guerrilla Game Director Mathijs de Jonge wrote:

"Our first priority when we started working on the controls for Killzone 3 was to listen closely to Killzone 2's players - what they liked, what they disliked, and how they felt things could be improved," He said. "Accuracy and responsiveness consistently came up as the top issues. At the same time, a lot of players were saying they loved the weighty feel."

On top of this he also stated that the team were hard at work in delivering an optimal degree of controller response time for Killzone 3, hopefully preserving the feeling of weight without sacrificing the fluidity required, and indeed expected from such a high-end FPS.

"Right now it's still a work in progress," Mathijs explained. "But we're definitely getting there. We've recalibrated the dead zone to be more responsive and significantly reduced the input lag, resulting in far better accuracy. Best of all, we've managed to retain that sense of weight that set Killzone 2 apart from other shooters. I can't wait for people to try it out."

This can only be good news for the people who felt Killzone 2’s controls to be a little too slow for their needs, especially when the sensation of weight doesn’t necessarily have to mean any additional input lag to facilitate it.

Tech Analysis: Infamous 2 - Early Screens & Trailer

Infamous 2 made its debut at this year’s E3 showcasing a slight change in art style and numerous graphical upgrades. For the first time the series looked reasonably impressive, throwing around more detailed characters and environments with even greater use of the fancy lighting effects which propped up the first game.

The look was clearly refined, and the tech powering the game enhanced over and above the original. And that is exactly why we are going to be looking at Infamous 2 today, having a peek at what lies beneath the graphical upgrades you might have witnessed in the game’s E3 trailer and demonstration footage.

The original Infamous wasn’t particularly graphically impressive, with no anti-aliasing creating loads of crawling jagged lines, and the somewhat poor texturing, combined with the dark and gritty art style often counteracting the game’s technical proficiency. So it pretty surprising to see this sequel actually appearing relatively impressive this early on in the game, especially when you think about how the build shown off at E3 was pre-alpha code with many engine improvements yet to be implemented.

Sucker Punch has looked at the criticisms levelled at the first game’s visuals and has set about improving them in every way, with a more refined art style backed up with a range of noticeable technical enhancements.

Most interestingly is the announcement that the developers are targeting 60 frames per-second in time for the game’s release – that’s double the framerate of the first game, no mean feat considering the series open world nature. Coincidently, I actually stated whilst playing Infamous, that I though it looked like a 60fps game but running at 30fps, one that appeared to be held back by a lack of optimisation and certain compromises usually associated with titles striving for that rarely seen benchmark in smoothness.

Considering the size and scope of the game it is unlikely that a constant 60fps will be obtainable in this sequel. Instead I expect that Sucker Punch will be able to deliver a framerate that fluctuates between 60fps and 30fps, with the average count hitting around 40-45fps in most scenarios (much like in God Of War 3). So better than 30fps, but not quite the revelatory solid 60fps that is considered the Holy Grail then? We shall have to wait and see.


Like with the original, Infamous 2 appears to be rendering in 720p (1280x720) with no anti-aliasing of any kind, though given the compressed nature of the screenshots it can be quite hard to tell. It could well be 640p, no AA, but both the blur effect combined with the compression artefacts prevent any flawless pixel counting from taking place. Either way, from these screens the game looks closer to 720p with blur than anything else.

In terms of the no AA claim, initially I found that there could be some kind of selective edge smoothing could be going on, however this isn’t actually the case at all. What is basically happening is some reduction in jagged lines caused by the games use of blur and post process effects, which in motion do little to alleviate the overall appearance of aliasing, but in stills do help to cover up the jagged nature of the game’s visuals - although not to the extent of using a proper AA solution. Evidence of aliasing can be found in parts of the image being blurred, which again further proves the lack of any AA.

However, seeing as Infamous 2 is only at the pre-alpha stage it is possible that the developers may well include some form of AA in the game. A strong possibility is the use of morphological anti-aliasing, which is relatively easy to implement if you have a few SPU cycles spare. Although just a guess, it would make perfect sense, and it’s pretty unlikely that someone at Sucker Punch hasn’t already considered the approach for this sequel.

Outside of the resolution and lack of anti-aliasing Infamous 2 is sporting a whole host of obvious engine improvements. The characters in particular have been completely reworked, looking far more detailed than before using more geometry and greater levels of texturing. The art style, although still dark and gritty, now has strong influences from Naughty Dog’s Uncharted series, in particular Uncharted 2, looking smoother and more polished as a result.


Looking closer still, you’ll find that it’s not just the characters that have seen a large increase in detail. The buildings which make up the cityscape, and the cars which populate it have also seen noticeable improvements. The buildings are more detailed, and like the characters, benefit from having better use of texturing and increased levels of geometry. In particular the game’s LOD system seems to be less aggressive compared to the first Infamous with buildings retaining detail much further on in the distance compared to before.

Of course, texture detail and geometry complexity are only part of what makes up a graphically impressive game world. In order to make it truly convincing you need to have a balanced and consistent lighting system, with realistic and dynamic shadowing - something which the developers are keen to showcase with Infamous 2.

From the screenshots used in this feature, and from the E3 live demo, and recent trailers it is clear that Infamous 2’s light sources have a greater range compared to the ones used in the first game. Notice not only how the light travels further away from its point of origin, but also how it affects objects all around it, lighting up surrounding shadowed areas and casting some new shadows in others. Unfortunately, at this point none of the dynamic lighting given off by the games visual effects actually casts a shadow of itself anywhere on the environment. Instead it simply creates new or extended shadows for environmental objects.

Enemies do however cast shadows this time around - the fact that they didn’t before is something that looked a little odd, and there appears to some evidence of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO) going on in the environment. Just focus your eyes on the signpost to the right-hand side of the street, looking at the shadowing behind it. There are clear signs here that SSAO has been included in this sequel, and the result is a greater amount of natural depth to the overall image. This was something that the original Infamous sorely lacked, and is something which clearly benefits this sequel.


Moving on, the particle system featured in the first Infamous was quite impressive at times, especially when the screen became filled with lightning and sparks began to fly off surrounding metal objects and vehicles. So for Infamous 2 Sucker Punch have also upgraded this part of the engine. Particles are larger and the lightning effects themselves seem to have more of an effect on the surrounding environment than with the first game.

Most of these visual effects all appear to be running at the same resolution as the rest of the game, although compression once again prevents us from accurately gauging this one hundred percent. We can also see that some are clearly rendered using a lower resolution alpha buffer, though the difference is very slight indeed. Sadly the same cannot be said of the smoke particles to be found in the game, which are not only low res, but are also flat 2D sprites which occasionally stand out when combined with the other 3D effects. Still, this issue is only apparent in certain situations, and is unlikely to be noticeable during gameplay as it is in still video captures.

On top of all the improvements that Infamous 2 is delivering we can also glimpse from the E3 live demo, and recent trailers that there is far more in the way of destructible scenery compared to the last game. The sheer amount of things that can be blown up, and that can catch on fire is noticeably greater, as is the level of detail in these objects, which have all benefited from improved texturing and better modelling.


From what we’ve seen so far Sucker Punch has upped the ante for this sequel, refining and building upon an already solid game engine with an even better one. The improvements to character and environmental modelling are obvious, as is the improved lighting and larger special effects, all of which help to create a better sense of depth to the image and generally gel together in creating a more polished look in accordance with the adapted art style.

Surprisingly, the developer also hope to have the game up and running at 60fps by the time of release sometime next year. Surprising, because Infamous 2, like its predecessor, is an open world game, one which features sprawling environments, and at times, densely populated areas which will no doubt compromise the engine’s ability to maintain the targeted 60fps.

However, if this sequel sticks to the level design blue print of the first game then there shouldn’t be so much of a problem. The original Infamous made use of having various tall buildings obscuring distant streets, and denser parts of the environment in order to maintain framerate, so it’s highly likely that the developers will do the same thing here in this sequel. This controlled use of your viewpoint in a game in which the player controls the camera, and in which the engine cannot predict the load, is particularly important in maintaining a smooth framerate - let alone 60fps, especially when optimisations in other areas may not be so convenient when you’re pushing around more onscreen at any given time.

Either way, Infamous 2 is shaping up rather well. Graphically, at this early stage (its pre-alpha) it already looks noticeably superior to the last game and still has ways to go until it’s finished. Nailing down that now seemingly mythical 60fps is going to be the toughest challenge the developer faces, along with maintaining resolution and overall environmental detail at the same time. But so far it all looks to be going smoothly, with controlled use of lower-res transparencies, and only minor such cutbacks in image quality in order to sustain the various improvements we are seeing.

As more developments surface we shall be taking another look at the technology behind Infamous 2 in the future. Hopefully some uncompressed framebuffer grabs come our way finally allowing us to properly determine rendering resolution and clear up any inconsistencies we might be finding.

PS3 Gets More 3D Features

It’s not just games and BluRay movies that you’ll be able to view in 3D on the PlayStation 3. At an exclusive London event Mick Hocking, Sony Worldwide Studios head of 3D games, revealed that support for both 3D TV shows, and YouTube 3D was coming in a future firmware upgrade for Sony’s flagship gaming system.

"Crucially for us, PlayStation 3 will be able to store all types of 3D content. And we can do this through properly upgrading the Firmware on the platform.

Hocking also mentioned that Sony have plans to release a full 3D update for their PlayTV PVR add-on for the PS3, which will enable users to record both current HD broadcasts along with 3D Freeview content when it finally arrives. In addition, support for 3D photos and video camera recordings will be hitting the PS3 by the end of this year, although no firm dates were revealed.

"So you'll see 3D games in the next 12 months, you'll see Blu-ray movies in 3D, and as soon as the broadcasts start through our PlayTV services, you're going to watch 3D content [via that].

"YouTube will be supporting 3D content over the next 12 months as well - and you'll be able to watch that on the PlayStation 3. And as you start taking 3D pictures of your family or 3D camcorder movies, you can play those back on PS3, too."

This news means that not only is the PS3 vastly becoming a solid destination for all music, video, and games media, but also for all 3D entertainment content too.

All in all, Sony’s plan in attempting to conquer the living room appears to be going well, with BluRay becoming the next disc-based movie standard after a short format war with HD-DVD, and with strong support for 3D gaming already in motion, the inclusion of 3D TV show and YouTube support is the icing on the cake.

Tech Analysis: Killzone 3 E3 Demo - 2D VS 3D

Killzone 2 is still one of the technical benchmarks for Sony’s PS3. However you might dislike the dark and grainy art style, or the subdued colour palette on offer, the game showed developers (and gamers alike) just what was possible on the system when tightly using the CELL + RSX combo the way is was supposed to be used. And for E3 2010 Sony took Guerrilla Games’ Killzone 3 as their lead technical showcase for not only the PS3, but also for their newly affirmed focus on 3D gaming.

From all the screens and videos released there’s no doubt that Guerrilla’s latest is as visually striking as it is technically brilliant, but what about under the hood? What’s changed? And more importantly how well does the current engine hold up to rendering in 3D, especially with minimal compromises on what’s being pushed around on screen?

Well, in this feature that’s exactly what we’ll be taking a look at, analysing the E3 build of the game in both 3D and 2D, seeing exactly what improvements have been made and what has been paired back in order to get the game working (fully playable I might add) in 3D.

Anyway, before we talk about that in more detail, lets take a look at the game in 2D and see just how it fares at its current point in development.

Like with it’s predecessor Killzone 3 renders in 1280x720, but rather than use quincunx anti-aliasing again the developers have elected to use morphological anti-aliasing instead - a far superior technique for reducing jagged lines whilst maintaining overall image quality.

Looking at the screenshot below, the effect the MLAA has on image quality is obvious. The final image is much sharper and clearer, with fewer jagged lines being present than before, and without any additional blur caused by the use of QAA. The only blur you are seeing in the screens is caused by the various post process, and depth of field effects that Guerrilla are using throughout the game, all of which are artistic choices and not technical compromises. It’s all part of the dark and gritty look of the franchise.


Like with God Of War 3 some surfaces receive as much as 16xMSAA, whilst others more in the range of 4x, or occasionally less in areas with ultra small polygon edges. Ether way the use of MLAA is a marked improvement from the QAA of the first game.

However, unlike in certain games (I’m talking about you Red Dead) the use of QAA in Killzone 2 wasn’t at all detrimental to the overall image. Instead the slightly blurrier looked suited the art style the developers were aiming for, and the image still looked particularly clean and quite sharp. The same could also be said of Insomniac’s Resistance: Fall Of Man, and its sequel - both of which used the infamous QAA.

Switching to MLAA simply allows texture detail to come through unscathed (no blur) with greater levels of edge smoothing at a lower cost. You’re getting a smoother look without making any of the same compromises as before, and potentially saving on memory as well.

So like with God Of War 3 the use of MLAA does much to improve image quality whilst having less of a performance hit than you might think. Although are times in which this new form of anti-aliasing isn’t so effective at dealing with jagged lines, particularly when coming up against sub pixel aliasing - something which does crop up noticeably in parts of Killzone 3. Areas of the game which features loads of thin polygon lines; fences, railings, power cables etc, are all prone to displaying jaggies, and this is something that MLAA can’t really help with.

Below is a clear example of what I mean. In the screenshot it is evident that sub pixel (a triangle smaller in size than a pixel of the rendering resolution) edges receive no AA of any kind, something which would either require a change in how these objects were rendered or a switch to supersampling in order to resolve the problem.


Essentially MLAA works by detecting edges in a scene on a pixel level, finding them and smoothing them over resulting in a highly effective way of dealing with jaggies. This is perfect for high contrast scenes (unlike with MSAA) as edges are clearly detectable thus being easily smoothed over. The problem comes in when the edges you have to deal with are smaller than one pixel of the rendering resolution, and as MLAA works only on pixel size edges anything smaller simply gets no anti-aliasing. Or that is how I understand it. The result is some edge shimmering and noticeable aliasing on objects with lots of sub pixel edges.

Moving on to smoke and particle effects, it is obvious that they are again rendered in a lower resolution than the rest of the game.

Like in Killzone 2 all alpha effect buffers are rendered in 640 x 360 (quarter of the resolution of 720p), a common practice for most PS3 developers due to the system’s lack of available memory bandwidth compared to Microsoft’s 360 with its 10MB EDRAM.

Basically PS3’s GPU, the RSX, features a fairly low pixel fill rate, and this effects how many transparencies can be drawn on screen at any given time. 360 on the other hand through its use of EDRAM provides the GPU with a much higher fill rate enabling not only more transparent objects to be drawn at once, but also to feature transparencies at a matching screen resolution en masse.

In motion the lower resolution of the alpha buffers is hardly visible with the various post processing effects going on – such as depth of field - and they do look rather smooth and well defined. Although, as we can see below in still screens these effects still appear to look softer than the objects around them.


Impressively, it looks like the developers are using volumetric effects for all the smoke in the game (like with Killzone 2), although in reality this is somewhat misleading. Instead of actually rendering 3D volumetric particles, they are using layers of 2D sprites which have been blended together and combined with geometry using something called ‘alpha test’ in order to re-create that volumetric look without the added processing cost of doing it for real.

This blending is also one of the reasons why the smoke and particle effects all look somewhat soft and smoothened, in addition to the AA that they seem to be getting on top of that, and of course the upscaling taking place. It is also noticeable that the higher contrast nature of the stage demoed at E3 seemed to lessen the volumetric look associated with the effects, whilst also diluting the dynamic lighting being used somewhat.


Despite this Killzone 3 still looks visually stunning though, losing nothing along the way from the last game, and the developers may have also seen fit to upgrade the use of ambient occlusion for this latest instalment.

Previously for Killzone 2 Guerrilla were in the process of adding real-time SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) to the game but didn’t have time to properly implement the effect, instead using baked AO as a substitute. Now it looks like this could have been changed, and for the first time we are seeing what appears to be proper use of SSAO for Killzone 3.

Although officially unconfirmed at this point, the screenshot below clearly shows some evidence of the effect being present. Just check out the shadows on the floor below the Helgast’s feet, in which we can see that something different is definitely going on. SSAO? Maybe. And it wouldn’t be a surprise to see it given the fact that it was being worked on long before development on KZ3 started.

You can also see the improvements made to texture quality compared to KZ2. Textures are clearer, crisper, and generally more detailed than before, perhaps as a result of no blurring being present from using QAA, but also because texture resolution seems to have been upped for certain objects in the game.


From what we’ve seen so far KZ3 is shaping up to be a clear visual improvement over the last game in 2D, with the MLAA being a particular standout, and the cleaner, sharper look appearing giving the game a more polished feel overall. The sense of scale has been noticeably upped, and the sheer amount of stuff going on at once is undoubtedly impressive.

But how does this compare with the game running in 3D?

Surprisingly, Guerrilla Games have also managed to achieve some of these feats when rendering the game in this mode, like keeping in all the complex smoke and particle effects without cutting back on the amount of stuff on screen at any time. However, the game’s rendering resolution in this mode leaves a lot to be desired.

When rendering in 3D you are essentially doubling up most of your graphics work rendering every frame twice, one for each eye. Now, certain things can be carried over between frames to save on performance, but many things can’t, and this why cutbacks have to be made. And for Killzone 3 there are sizable cutbacks with regards to the games rendering resolution, and the resolution of alpha channel visual effects.

Below are two screenshots showing the game in action. The top one shows the game running in 3D mode, and the bottom the same scene but running in 2D. As you can tell the difference is night and day, with the 3D version looking rather unsightly.


Killzone 3 in 3D


Killzone 3 in 2D

Looking at the above screenshots you can see that image quality has taken a massive hit as a result of the steep drop in both rendering resolution of the main framebuffer, and the alpha channel effects buffers.

For its 3D mode Killzone 3 renders in 640x716 with MLAA, and the effects buffers (which were already rendering in quarter resolution) are again halved down to 320x360 creating an unsightly scene of jagged lines and upscaling artefacts.

The alpha effects in particular seem to suffer the most with this, as when they overlap with opaque geometry they cause aliasing atifacts to appear heightening the games increased jagged appearance. In addition shader and sub pixel aliasing are also magnified as a result.

Having to render twice the amount of geometry on screen at once also causes problems, and various reports of seeing the game running in 3D state that there is noticeably greater levels of pop up compared to running in 2D mode. Even though you are running at half resolution, you still have to render the geometry twice so there is still an impact with performance despite cutbacks in the number of pixels being worked on compared to rendering in full 720p for 2D.

So far it isn’t looking too good for Killzone 3 in 3D, with the current build definitely being a poor representation of how the game should look, although in that respect you simply cannot expect standard 2D levels of performance with current generation console hardware. There just isn’t enough power to handle it, and with optimisations only so much can be done. However seeing the game being displayed with all the intricate particle effects and multiple light sources in 3D is pretty impressive, even if the result isn’t as clean or as smooth as we’d like. I would say that it not only shows promise, but also is a key indication of just how much untapped potential is still left inside the PS3 hardware for games in general.

There is also the opinion that increased levels of jagged edges and upscaling artefacts are less visible when viewing them in 3D compared to seeing the same thing in 2D. How true or accurate this is I don’t know, not actually seeing Killzone 3 running in actual 3D in the flesh – only a 2D version of the game’s 3D rendering mode. But the argument for even having a cut down, lower-res 3D mode is unsurprisingly strong, especially given the marketing potential for this new format.

Either way Guerrilla Games have stated that they are targeting 720p (1280x720) for Killzone 3 in 3D, and it’s likely that they’ll do whatever it takes to reach that milestone without overly compromising the look of the game, optimising where necessary, and cutting back on post processing effects that don’t work so well in 3D (motion blur, depth of field). Full 720p looks to be pretty much out of the equation, realistically. But you know, maybe something like 852x720, which would still provide better image quality than 640x716, but without having to cutback as much on the core graphics make up of the game.

With Killzone 3’s release not until February next year the developers have plenty of time to improve and optimise their engine for both 2D and 3D, so it will be rather interesting to see just how well the game fares a few months down the line. As new videos surface, and information gets drip-fed out we shall no doubt be taking another look at the game and the tech behind it.