Retro Tech Analysis: Virtua Racing (MD vs 32X)

Well, here’s the final part of our Christmas/New Year holiday coverage. Having mostly been put together after hours outside of a busy period at work this week, you’ll find a comprehensive and in-depth head-to-head analysis of Sega’s Virtua Racing.

I guess you could have see it coming from our earlier post. Regardless, it's certainly been fun putting it together. Anyway, we’ll be back after this sometime next week for the start of our regular 2011 updates, but for now, have a Happy New Year and enjoy!

Virtua Racing wasn’t the first 3D racing game to properly make use of polygons in the make up of both its cars and environments, although it did firmly set the president for all other arcade racers to follow. With a decidedly unique approach to realism – slidey handling mixed with spin-outs and flip-over crashes – it not only played differently to similar sprite-based games, but also delivered that 3D ‘wow’ factor by giving players four different viewpoints to choose from, and three highly detailed tracks to immerse you in its world.

It was also one of the first fully featured 3D titles to arrive on home consoles, battling against the likes of Starwing and Stunt Race FX on the Super NES for domination of the early 3D arms race before it really kicked off with the 32bit generation.

Sega first produced a version of the VR for the MegaDrive, using a similar method of in-cart enhancement as Nintendo, courtesy of the SVP (Sega Vitual Processor) chip - which handled all the geometry calculations and drew all the polygons for the game - but then transformed the idea into the fledgling 32X, a full blown add-on for the aging 16bit MD, along with a expanded release of the game, dubbed Virtua Racing Deluxe, in time for the machine’s launch in November 1994.

Today we shall be looking at both the MD and 32X ports of the game, comparing and contrasting the two for a special retro tech analysis of sorts. However, in order to capture screenshots for this feature, and to compare direct performance via (sadly unpublished) videos, we’ve had to use emulation for the basis of our analysis rather than actual hardware. Thankfully, in order to keep any rendering errors, and artificial performance anomalies to the bare minimum, we are running both games using Kega Fusion - the most accurate of all the MD emulators out there - with settings that closely represent the game running on original hardware.

So without further ado, let’s get on with it.


MD


32X

Like with the latest titles on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, framebuffer resolution was as important back then when it came to image sharpness and clarity as it is now, with many games boasting a range of differing native resolutions. Virtua Racing is no exception. Rendering in 256x240 on the MD and 320x240 on the 32X, both versions feature the same overall 240p vertical resolution with the MD sacrificing some horizontal resolution for performance reasons.

However, both versions are also clipped to a 192 vertical resolution, with black boarders being used for the remainder of pixels rendered on screen. This means, that like in SF2:SCE, there are small boarders visible at the top and bottom of the screen that appear in PAL and NTSC versions of the game – the boarders are just larger in PAL 50hz mode owing to the extra unused screen resolution on display.

As expected there is also no anti-aliasing to be found - a visual effect which didn’t appear in home console graphics architectures until the debut of the N64 in late 1996. Instead polygons are presented in one of their rawest forms, flat shaded with pixel edges clearly being visible throughout.


MD


32X

In screenshots, the difference in native resolution comes across with one image looking smaller than the other. Although, on the TV this manifests itself with the MD version looking softer than the 32X game. As there is no scaling involved at any point, it’s instead up to the TV to manually stretch out the picture to the correct aspect ratio of the screen, which is done on a CRT by the electron bean scanning the lesser amount of pixels across a greater number of phosphors without any digital processing.

Softness is also increased by the MD version’s use of heavy dithering, used to simulate more colours on screen at once than what the system is capable of. Essentially, the MD game uses 15 colours for the polygon layer – 4bit pixels paired as single 8bit pixels, whilst the 32X version uses the system’s direct colour mode with 15-bit RGB and 16bpp in order to deliver 256 plus colours on screen at once. Using this mode, its actually possible for the machine to display up to 32,000 colours on-screen. Although, VRD doesn't do this.


MD


32X

As a result VR on the MD uses lots of selective dithering for representing many different shades of geometry for both the scenery and the actual cars, while on the 32X dithering is reserved purely for transparencies, with multiple shades and colours being used for polygon details.

In the screenshot above, you can see that on the 32X transparent objects such as shadows and selected smoke effects are dithered, whereas on the MD everything from the cars, the environment, and the effects use the technique. There are comparatively few areas of the stock VR game that don’t use dithering to balance out the lack of available colours for suitable 3D rendering. Unlike fully textured geometry, objects using flat shaded geometry require a greater number of colours to represent detailed imagery.

The downside to this, is that the heavily dithered image composition of the MD game leads to some noticeably fuzzy edges being present, along with making it more difficult to read the road up ahead – something which also isn’t helped by the game’s short draw distance.


RAW FB


Filtered FB

Dithering however, is largely only visible in unfiltered images. For example the above screenshots show, roughly, how the game would have looked via the MD’s – and indeed the 32X’s – video outputs using RGB SCART cables on a SD CRT. As you can see, dithering is greatly reduced due to the blending effect created by the filtered FB output, although some sharpness is lost as a result.


MD


32X

It’s fair to say then, that the Megadrive wasn’t set up with 3D rendering in mind. The system has no geometry processor, and features a CPU which is insufficient in rendering anything but the most primitive of polygonal shapes in small amounts. However, Virtua Racing manages to push around 6,500 polygons per-second via the use of Sega’s SVP chip – a DSP created by Samsung that handles all the geometry transform and rasterisation.

By contrast, the 32X has the benefit of featuring two Hitachi SH-2 CPU’s running at 23MHz in tandem, thus being able to churn out up to 50,000 polygons per-second in a best case scenario. How many PPS Virtua Racing Deluxe is pushing on screen we’re not exactly sure. However, it is definitely apparent that the number is significantly higher than what the MD using the SVP is doing.

On the other hand, the arcade version – powered by Sega’s Model 1 board – can deliver up to 180,000 flat-shaded PPS in-game, and does so with Virtua Racing at 30 frames per-second, so obviously it still has a sizable lead over both the MD and 32X games respectively.

In fact, the 32X game has much more in common overall with the MD version than with the coin-op. Although the cars themselves more accurately represent the arcade game in terms of raw detail, the trackside scenery, and the level of detail overall looks far more like an expansion of the modelling done on VR for the limited capabilities of the SVP chip powering the MD game. That said, the 32X version does a great job of representing the arcade on much weaker hardware.


MD


32X

The differences between each system’s hardware capabilities naturally have a great impact on just how well each version is replicated onscreen, with the added polygon pushing power of the 32X resulting in more detail cars and trackside scenery. Whereas the MD game just about resembles the coin-op, the 32X version on the other hand manages to replicate it a lot closer in certain areas.

The cars for example, are massively paired back on the MD. For comparison purposes we can only look at the stock formula 1 car, as the 32X game features the inclusion of two exclusive vehicles not in the arcade original or the MD game – the stock car, and prototype car. However, the formula 1 vehicle is bar far the most complex, featuring small interconnecting parts with more intricate geometric shapes making up its polygonal design.


MD


32X

Looking at the player’s car, we can see that its design on the MD is simply made up on more angular, square and rectangular-like shapes, with the wheels being directly attached to the side of the main body of the vehicle.

Around the front, and we can see examples of the curved design iconic to that of F1 and IndyCar vehicles, although decidedly blocky and very low poly. It can be quite hard to recognise the individual details which make up the various parts of the car in the rear, chase-cam view in comparison to both the 32X game and the coin-op.

The 32X version on the other hand, has a main vehicle that is not only more intricately detailed but also one that better represents the ones found in the arcade original as a whole. As you can see above, the wheels are now connected to the main body via individual rods, just like they would be on a real F1 car.

In addition, the front structure is more curved, and features an increased cone-like design, which better replicates the aerodynamic chassis required for high-speed racing. There is also better separation of the front, cockpit, and rear of the car, with the individual elements being more identifiable than on the MD version.

Despite the more detailed nature of the cars in general in the 32X game, there are some elements of the blocky MD vehicles that more closely represent the arcade version in some scenes.


MD


32X

In terms of the environment, both versions are at times reasonably close to each other, with the overall landscape holding similar shape and geometric composition despite the differences in polygons used throughout. The 32X version however, features bulked up parts of the environment using more geometry and a greater number of on-screen colours to smoothen off the rougher edges. Mountains in particular not only look larger on the 32X, but also feature much smoother transitions between gradients.

In other areas we can see more in the way of smaller environment details. In particular, the ferris wheel on the fairground is noticeably more complex in VRD compared to the MD game. While similar things can also be seen with the stands throughout the opening section of the Expert course, along with additional extras such as more in the way of metal railings and other trackside structures.


MD


32X

The pit crew look largerly identical, with only minor tweaks and featuring a different colour scheme. They appear to be constructed from various rectangular and square shaped boxes in combination with strips. Obviously, due to the poly starved nature of both the MD and the 32X, neither version showcases anything near approaching a human-like representation of people.


MD


32X

Strangely, there are areas in which the 32X game seems to feature less in the way of trackside detail than the MD one. In the above screenshots we can see what looks like a group of small white buildings upon the mountains in the MD version, while in the 32X version, although the mountains themselves appear fuller in terms of size and complexity, the buildings have been removed.

Across the whole game there are other such discrepancies between the two versions, in which some subtle details have been removed in the 32X version in order to accommodate the higher poly - and in itself more detailed - baseline scenery instead. On the plus size, the courses themselves are made up of larger objects which bring a far greater sense of scale to the proceedings compared to the standard VR on the MD.


MD


32X

Of course not all of the changes between VR and VR Deluxe are technical enhancements and compromises. A few differences appear to be purely cosmetic. Take for example, the sign pictured above from the Expert Course: on the MD it says “Sonic”, whereas the same one is displaying “32X” for Sega's upgraded Deluxe version.


MD


32X

The Course Select screen has also been updated in the 32X version from both the MD and the arcade. Each course has been given a rotating 3D model on the selection screen, along with the cars being given the same treatment on another menu. However, in the original arcade and MD games, the course select screen simply features a still 2D bitmap image instead.

The improvements don’t have a baring on the overall conversion quality of the two console conversions, although the spruced up presentation elements of the 32X game makes initial experience feel a little fresher and more in-keeping with the early 3D revolution that was taking place at the time.


MD


32X

Draw distance however, does greatly impact on the level of enjoyment you’re likely to get from each game, not least of all because the dithered nature of the MD version also further affects this, sometimes adversely – the fuzzier overall look makes seeing distance objects somewhat more difficult.

While both versions initially appear to have similar levels of polygon pop-up, there are instances where the 32X game suffers from closer on screen draw-in of certain objects, whilst the MD version features a more consistent level of draw-in on the whole. Smaller environmental details tend to pop-up later on the 32X, while the larger chunks of scenery usually appear at the same time, or slightly earlier than on the MD.

However, this peculiar observation seems to be track specific, with most of the offending examples happening on the beginner course. On most of the other tracks, pop-up seems to be near identical for both games; that is to say, while it can be rather intrusive at times, it is for the most part tolerable once you get used to it. Although, using the in-car view is pretty much useless, with the default, and higher viewpoints providing by far the best gameplay experience due to the closeness of the draw distance and overall image quality as a whole.


MD


32X

Moving on, and performance is rather interesting in Virtua Racing, not least of all because the game runs at such low framerates by modern standards, but because it still feels rather smooth on both formats despite this. Obviously, as already mentioned, the arcade game runs at a solid 30fps with full v-sync enabled - something that neither of the two home console conversions could manage without further heavy cuts in detail, and even then it would be virtually impossible on the MD using the current SVP chip implementation.

Instead, we see the framerate on the MD version halved in comparison to the coin-op. Virtua Racing runs at a solid 15fps on Sega’s 16bit platform, right in accordance with the SVP chip’s 6,500 polygons per-second at 15 frames per-second in-game limit. Even when spinning out of control, or crashing with other vehicles before flipping your car over in a similarly ridged fashion to that of the arcade game, VR never slows down.

By contrast, similar games from the time – like the Super NES’ Super FX powered Stunt Race FX – run at anything between 12-15fps depending on engine load and scene complexity, making Sega’s conversion to the MD all the more impressive. This feat is further enhanced when you consider that the game allows you to select all four views from the original arcade game – one of which sees you looking down on the race via an ‘eye in the sky’ type position, pushing engine load without faltering.

Interestingly, when playing this version of the game first, self-contained and away from other versions, the framerate feels pretty smooth despite being so low. It’s only when put up against Virtua Racing Deluxe does the lack of fluidity strongly manifest itself.

Jumping to VRD on the 32X, and the difference in smoothness is instantly noticeable. Like with VR on the MD, Deluxe is fully v-synced with no visible screen tearing occurring at any point. However, unlike the MD game, it comes even closer to matching the arcade game’s 30fps benchmark. Here, we see a solid 20fps update providing a clear extra level of fluidity above that of the MD version. Control not only feels smoother but also more responsive.

In any case, both home versions of the game pale in comparison to the coin-op, which not only boasts a much smoother framerate, but also vastly superior levels of detail. However, both the MD and 32X ports are incredibly accomplished, and for their time represent some of the very best in arcade to home experiences any console could offer.

Overall performance across both home versions is solid, free of any screen tearing, but most of all, smooth enough to allow for a fully playable experience, even if the MD game feels more than a little rough around the edges after sampling the 32X version.


MD


32X

What is surprising, is that Virtua Racing still holds up relatively well after all these years... on the 32X at least. Sure, the draw distance is a bitter reminder of the mixed travesty that was in some areas the Saturn conversion of Daytona USA - often impeding your ability in reading the road using the cockpit view - but the overall modelling of the environments, the look of the cars, and the crisp, responsive control, means that the game, to this day, is still very playable.

On the other hand, the MD version isn’t quite so lucky. The heavily dithered nature of the scenery, and the blocky, low poly enemy cars means that both sharp turns and other vehicles are sometimes very hard to spot before colliding straight into them. However, the game’s 15fps update still feels surprisingly smooth considering just how low it really is. Most of the problems don’t stem from the lack of overall fluidity, but from poor image quality and a large amount of polygon pop-up. Both of which do far more harm than good.

That said, getting Virtua Racing running on both of these consoles to a playable, even enjoyable, standard is somewhat remarkable. But whether this was the right thing to do, instead of focusing on the Saturn in the first place, is anyone’s guess. Either way, for most people Sega’s 16bit console and 32bit mushroom add-on was the only way to play Virtua Racing at home.

Of course, today that’s a moot point. Seeing as a definitive version of the game has been available for the last few years on the PS2 - its 60fps, and with the arcade game being near perfectly emulated in MAME, you could argue, is there really any reason to pick up such archaic conversions?

For anyone who likes to play games on proper hardware, free from the glitches and disconnecting feel sometimes offered up by emulation, then yes, I would certainly say so. In which case the 32X game is clearly the one to go for. Representing a fine balance between heavily cut down home console port and excellent arcade conversion, it manages to out perform the botched Saturn version in both graphics and gameplay overall, whilst still being a thoroughly faithful adaptation of Sega’s first 3D gaming sensation.

Review: Crazy Taxi (XBLA)

Way back when Crazy Taxi was first released in the summer of 2000, it felt like an 8/10 game. It may have been a rather simple and particularly shallow arcade experience, one designed to quickly sap those £1 coins away from your wallet and into its cabinet’s mechanical belly, but it was an extremely fun ride while it lasted. The Dreamcast conversion was almost completely arcade perfect, but aided in increasing longevity by adding in another city in which to drive around, and a cool mode full of wacky driving mini-games in the form of the Crazy Box.

Now Crazy Taxi has returned to the scene in a supposed HD re-release over both Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. However, while everything looks almost as you remember it, the actual game as a whole has undergone a few tweaks and changes that seemingly take away from the originally inspired OTT outing.

For the most part, much is the same as I remember it. There’s two basic modes on offer here - Arcade and Original - each with their own take on things, and two separate stages in which to ferry around easily displeased passengers in. One of these comes directly from the arcade game, while the other was created specifically for the DC conversion itself. Four different cabbies are available, each with different handling characteristics and driving capabilities.


The basic blueprint of the gameplay then, has been left unchanged, except perhaps for a difference in handling. Instead you’ll find that most of the superficial stuff – the stuff that actually mattered the most – has been altered in order to save on the licensing fees Sega don’t seem to want to be paying.

Take the music for example. Part of the fun of playing CT wasn’t just rampaging across a fictionally mapped San Francisco while giving passengers the daily ride of their lives, but rampaging along whilst the philosophical lyrics of Bad Religion’s ‘Them and Us’, or the energetically youthful screams from The Offspring’s ‘All I Want’ indoctrinated your mind in a blaze of punk rock inspired mayhem.

Sadly, these are nowhere to be found. Instead, arguably the main draw of the original has been replaced with a series of bland, indie rock songs which are neither iconic, nor worthy of replacing the brilliant fusion that was once contained within. Whereas before the music helped maintain a conscious rhythm keeping you speeding along even faster as the timer briskly made its way to zero, the new songs found here simply grate. Their default volume is also too loud, thus drowning out the rest of the game.


The rest of the licences don’t fare any better. Like with the music, they’re simply not here at all. Nope, line’s such as ‘take me to Pizza Hut’ or ‘I wanna go to the KFC’ have been replaced with the likes of ‘Pizza Place’ and ‘FCS’ (Fried Chicken Shack), along with different voice actors and a tone failing to capture the spirit of the original. It’s pretty strange to see the key elements that made CT work so well torn out and replaced with poor substitutes.

The question is, why did Sega not simply extend the licences for use in this re-release? Have they become so poor that they couldn’t afford for a ten year old game to relinquish it’s aging licences, or did they simply not give two pence to make it happen? I don’t know, but something tells me it was the latter. Although, the very way the whole system works is as much to blame. Why should publishers have to pay for licences on game that they’ve already paid for before? Because, apparently, they expire after a certain time.


In my opinion, it’s an archaic and thoroughly over abused system, which can, if allowed to, regularly ruin the classic feel of older games with their modern day re-releasing. Of course that’s just how things work, and in any case the decision to extend the licenses should’ve been taken when someone though it would be a great idea to make CT available once again.

Outside of not having the music or places I remember, other areas have also been reworked for unknown reasons. The voices for all four main characters have been taken from the PS2 and GCN ports – that is to say they are different from the DC original. They’re certainly not as good. They sound nasally and distinctly off. Plus the game’s handling mechanic has been pulled right out of its sequel Crazy Taxi 2, and not from the first game of which this is supposed to be a port.

The tighter nature of the handling is actually okay… just about. But at the same time feels more suited to the confined city streets of New York depicted in CT2 rather than here, in the more wide-open landscapes of San Francisco.


Sadly, the XBL and PSN version of CT is an uneasy mix of fragmented parts of the PC, PS2, and DC games without solidly being based on either one, lacking the polish required to be a hit, along with any sense of care or attention. This is also apparent when you hear the overly compressed voice samples, and poor quality music used in the port. At least, unlike with Sonic Adventure, we've finally got proper widescreen support. But only when you actually begin playing the game - the menus are of the stretched out 4:3 variety.

But despite all the little changes here and there which break up the solid flow of the cherished original, Crazy Taxi in its current form is still reasonably fun to play. The cool challenges of the ‘Crazy Box’ are still just as wacky and innovative as ever, and the simple nature of the gameplay is something that is missing from too many of today’s arcade driving games. However, without the licences or the handling of then original - which made it great back in the day, Crazy Taxi feels like an empty shell, a shell that’s had its soul and personality – its innards if you will – ripped out and discarded for all to see.


There is a great little arcade title locked inside this half-assed port. Sadly that game has been carved up and re-created without the same level of distinct charm and composition, which it needed in order to hold up well today. In the end, Crazy Taxi is still fairly enjoyable to play. But without a large sum of its original parts, is no longer the experience it should have been – it’s distinctly average. Any solace comes from the fact that the bulk of the main arcade game can be played through via the demo. No need to waste precious MS or PSN points then.

I loved the Dreamcast version of Crazy Taxi, but I can’t say that I’m all that enthused, or even appreciative of what we’ve been given here. Sure thing Sega, feel free to give us a port of the original game. But do just that. Do it right with everything left intact, and not with what looks like a partially emulated rush job straight out of a backyard chop-shop.

VERDICT: 5/10

Tech Analysis: Vanquish Update (PS3 vs 360)

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Review: Sonic 4: Episode 1 (PS3/PSN)

Sonic’s had a tough time as of late. It’s been nearly fifteen years since his name was last synonymous with quality gaming, a quality that appeared to diminish as soon as he and his various cohorts made the jump to 3D. It’s not just that however, subsequent 2D instalments have also missed the mark, and the point by favouring speed and automation over skilled platforming action. With Sonic 4 Sega is looking to rectify this by delivering a title that not only promises to play like the Sonics of old, but also to look like them as well. But does it succeed?


Right from the outset Sonic 4 wears its heritage on its sleeves. From the chequered scenery of the Splash Hill Zone, to the low-fi, synth-inspired soundtrack throughout (by Sonic Team’s Jun Senoue), every part of the game wants to be one of those 16bit Megadrive originals. And for all Sega’s efforts it largely achieves that, minus a few unnecessary slips along the way, and perhaps a tendency to stick a little too closely in trying to remake past titles instead of delivering something new.

What you’ll find in Sonic 4 is what can only be described as classically styled Sonic action. You’ll be running and jumping across various platforms, speeding through loop-de-loops and corkscrew paths, whilst being propelled into the air via star-printed springs, and bouncing on enemies to release your fluffy comrades locked inside. There’s no embarrassing voice acting, no wannabe superstar, quasi-metal music, and no additional playable characters. Although the latter was never a bad thing in the MD Sonics.


Power-ups make their trademark return. And for Sonic 4 Sega have simply gone back to the basics here as well; the bubble shield, speed shoes, and invisibility are the only ones to be included. And each one looks, and acts very much like it did all those years ago, bar a few modern changes of course. These are activated by jumping onto the various monitors located throughout each of the game’s four main stages, and other than giving you the aforementioned abilities, you can also find ones which give you ten rings instead. Again, exactly like the old Sonic games.

In terms of moves the spin dash introduced in Sonic 4 remains, though slower in execution than before, and perhaps a little less useful this time around. And this is joined by a homing attack, which works pretty much exactly as it did in Sonic Unleashed. What’s nice is that Sega haven’t tampered too much with the basics here; the homing attack works really well with the standard Sonic mechanics and level designs, and although these have been heavily altered, the inclusion of a new move actually keeps things fresh rather than feeling broken.


There are some cool parts throughout the game which sees Sonic, after speeding through a series of tunnels and loops, being catapulted into the air before allowing you to use the homing attack to bounce off a line of enemies, thus going down a different path in the stage than you normally would. In fact, there are quite a few different routes to take through each zone in Sonic 4. Some simply take you down Sonic Advance-inspired speed runs through a wealth of gorgeous scenery, whilst others find you carefully navigating a maze of platforms, bouncing off more enemies before both paths converge back onto the main route.

It’s things like these which show how accomplished some parts of the level design is in Sonic 4, and are clearly touching lightly upon aspects which later played a large part in Sonic 3, and Sonic & Knuckles. Admittedly, not all of these ideas work as expected, or anywhere near as well as they should. A few areas in the later parts of the game are filled with bottomless chasms, and cheap traps leading to a quick death. These often feel like remnants from the Sonic Advance games, and at times cast a real shadow over the splendid work Sonic Team have done with much of the game.


Another area in which Sonic Team (and Dimps) seems to have missed the mark is with regards to the game’s physics, and handling of Sonic himself. And they seem to have missed this by some margin.

One of the main complaints about Sonic Rush, and the recent 3D games, was that Sonic was just too fast, so much so that you often collided with enemies, and flew off platform edges before you knew that they were coming. Now, while this has indeed been addressed in Sonic 4, the developers have instead gone the opposite way, balancing out a lower top speed with really slow, and somewhat sluggish acceleration. Sonic 4 is slower (though only slightly) and less responsive that any of the 16bit titles in this regard

Annoyingly, the game was supposed to bring back the feeling of building up momentum and reaching top speed through cleverly finding that ‘perfect path’ through each level. However, the physics in Sonic 4 don’t seem to conform to gravity, instead they feel rather floaty and pretty heavy at the same time. It is possible for Sonic to walk up walls, lose speed whilst moving downhill. Plus, on top of that, it takes a good few seconds for him to get going fast enough for the game to begin to feel responsive.


On the upside, once you get used to this you’ll scarcely find that such issues break the game, let alone appear frequently. Although later parts require you to be able to move and respond faster, and without delay, it is still possible to manage with the current mechanics without causing too much in the way of frustration. Saying that Sonic Team definitely needs to address these concerns if they are to really make an exceptional, or even great Sonic game.

Still, I found my self regularly enjoying large parts of the game as a whole, sometimes loving them regardless of the issues present. It was also rather nice to see some solid, and often well thought out platforming sections throughout the game, balancing out the fast/slow dynamic the originals were known for. The odd, out of place puzzle in the Labyrinth Zone notwithstanding, much of the level design is firmly crafted mix of action and exploration, with a few more frequent bouts of high-speed excitement to differentiate things.


Laid out for all to see, Sonic 4 is played across four distinct zones, each with three main acts, and a final boss act, in which the player is faced with another battle against Dr Robotnik, and one of his Egg Mobile contraptions. The entire game is one retro-styled remix of the first two games, with elements from 3 and Sonic & Knuckles, combined with some original ideas and a lovely HD graphical overhaul.

The boss battles in particular are classic ones lifted from past games, whilst each being given an unexpected twist at the end. Sometimes these are awesome to fight against (the first boss), while at other times they are long and drawn out for far too long (the final encounter against all of the game’s bosses, and then a remake of Sonic 2’s end boss), which serve to annoy rather than to invoke fond memories of the old games Sega are trying to recreate.


Visually, Sonic 4 looks astounding at times. The unique mix of pre-rendered 2D sprites and polygon-based enemies and characters looks fantastic, and totally in keeping with the series trademark look. If you’ve ever wanted to see just what a HD-remix of Sonic 1 or 2 would look like, then Sonic 4 delivers just that. On a slight downer, every one of the game’s four stages are pretty much direct remakes of levels found in the first two 16bit Sonic’s. And whilst it is nice to them lavishly recreated in HD here, this is supposed to be Sonic 4, and not New Sonic The Hedgehog. But even then, I quite like the obvious homage.

One thing that does stick out for the worse is that Sonic’s running animation is also a little off and out of time with how fast he appears to be going. Making the change between walking, running, and full, flat-out, leg-rolling sprint never looks particularly comfortable. It’s fluid for sure, but also a little disjointed. However, the rest of the game is positively beautiful, and is exactly how I’d expected a current-gen 2D Sonic game to look like.


I have no qualms about Sonic’s brand new look. Overhauled using textured, anti-aliasd geometry was definitely the right choice - although I would’ve loved to see a totally sprite-based presentation (it’s about 95% at the moment) - his design echo’s what I would describe as a natural continuation of his look based on unused Knuckles Chaotix sprites, along with being jazzed up to fit in with how the brand is currently portrayed.

The music, made using low-fi synthesiser samples, sounds tonally very similar to that of the classic 16bit games. Whilst lacking the same range, the compositions themselves are perfectly in fitting with the game’s stages, and the retro-styled nature of the whole production. The title screen, Splash Hill Zone, and the first act of Mad Gear Zone are by far the best Sonic 4 has to offer.

You'll also be pleased to know that most of the sound effects have been taken from past games - the 16bit titles in particular, although some Sonic Adventure samples have been used for the menu screens throughout the game. Like with the music and the style of the graphics, the combination of seemlessly integrating old effects with ones taken from modern Sonic games is a great way of keeping that 'old-school' feeling intact without making it seem dated.


Sonic 4 is definitely a homage release in the vain of New Super Mario Bros, and a partial remake of Sonic’s 1&2, rather than an all out sequel to Sonic & Knuckles. Although that is hardly a bad thing considering it could have turned out so much worse.

I’m sure plenty of fans will moan about the change of art style surrounding Sonic himself, the obvious re-tread of various stages from the first two games, and the fact that the handling and physics aren’t quite as they should be. But that said, we all have our own ideas about just what Sonic 4 should be like, and what we have here is a rushed middle-ground of sorts; an often flawed, occasionally messy, but also sometimes great first attempt at crafting a modern day Sonic classic.

Sega’s latest is a solid mix of combining the old and the new, lacking in originality, or any real inspiration. But at the same time finding its feet after being absent for the past fifteen years, and in places doing a reasonably good job at that too. All things considered, and a few problems aside, with some small improvements and a more unique identity, then Sonic 4 may just turn into the true sequel we’ve all been waiting for. And that is all anyone, fans and new folk alike could really ask for. Though sadly, we’re not quite there yet.

VERDICT: 7/10