Tech Analysis: Split Second (360 vs PS3)

Earlier on today we posted up our technical analysis of BlackRock Studio’s Split Second. However it was brought to our attention that there was a mistake in our original article, which stated that the PS3 version of the game didn’t have any kind of anti-aliasing, when it did in fact have 2xMSAA just like the 360 version. Our reasoning behind this was the PS3 version's constant jagged lines made it look awfully like there was no AA. Although in hindsight the high contrast nature the game is actually the cause of the issue, creating problems for the MSAA in generating good enough samples for the anti-aliasing to work.

We did pick up on this in our original article (highlighted in bold)with regards to the 360 game, and it is still featured below in our updated version, but failed to spot this as the cause in the PS3 version. Despite this, in light of the above information, it doesn't change our initial feeling towards either version in any way.

We appologise for any mistakes and do try our best to maintain absolute accuracy in all the content we provide. However we are only human, and even the best of us can at times make the occasional error. What follows below is our updated and re-published article.

When BlackRock Studios first unleashed the critically praised pure onto consoles last year, it was a shining example of just how to approach multi-platform development. Highly optimised for both platforms strengths and weaknesses, it was largely identical, with only subtle differences between them, barely noticeable unless both versions were running side by side.

For Split Second the fine team at BlackRock seem to have done an almost equally stellar job, with the concessions made for each platform being remarkably low, and the differences again being hardly visible in motion, apart from perhaps the PS3 version's seemingly less successful use of AA and the 360's slightly blurred image.

Surprisingly, it is the PS3 that appears initially to get the arguably superior version this time around, on paper at least. Further inspection shows however, that things might not be so clear-cut. Whilst the PS3 build is in fact the sharpest, it also has some dialled back post processing effects and what appears to be only very little in the way of jaggies reduction through the use of MSAA.

In a game like Split Second - where high contrasting edges are everywhere - the 360’s use of AA isn’t as perfect as we’d like it to be either, with jaggies regularly appearing at certain points, although not to the extent of the PS3 version. But it’s eradication of more jagged lines does make a difference during gameplay, though not enough to make any version an initially clear winner.

So that’s the gist of it. Now, lets delve into those all-important details as we take a closer look at both versions of the game.


In terms of rendering resolution it’s the PS3 build that takes the lead with its crisp and clear 720p display. It’s a full 1280x720 on the Sony platform, and 1280x672 for the 360 game. Both seem to use the standard issue 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) that is commonplace in most titles on MS’s machine, although its inclusion in the PS3 build doesn’t do much to reduce aliasing.

From the screenshots on this page it’s pretty clear that the PS3 build is shaper overall than the 360 one. However the reason behind this isn’t quite so straightforward as you might think. Obviously the 360 build’s lower 672 resolution does have an impact on how sharp the final image will be, although as we’ve seen before with Splinter Cell and to a much lesser extent with Alan Wake, that an upscaled image can still look rather clean and artifact free. And with BlackRock’s latest that certainly seems to be the case, being pretty sharp in motion.

The upscaling appears to be rather good, and only a small amount of softness seems to come from this process. It can be pretty hard to tell though, as the game features heavy usage of a screen blurring post process effect which distorts the entire image. Thankfully we can still see that regardless of post processing, that the overall composition of the image is still superior in terms of raw sharpness in the PS3 build.

Unfortunately this raw sharpness coupled with what looks like no anti-aliasing in motion - due to the lack of good samples being available to the MSAA, largely because of the game featuring constantly high contrasting edges throughout - simply heightens the game’s already visible jagged lines, with the PS3 version crawling in shimmering edges. The 360 on the other hand, handles this a little better with it’s combined use of MSAA, greater amount of post processing, and from the extra blur added by the upscaling process, in which the overall result is a smoother final image despite the small vertical upscale taking place.

This is particularly noticeable during gameplay as the PS3 build’s constant edge shimmering make it just a little bit harder to read the road up ahead when things get chaotic. By contrast, the cleaner 360 game allows you to see small details coming up ahead without the screen crawling in as many aliasing atifacts, though they are a little blurrier than on the PS3.

Despite this issue both versions are equally playable, and at times the 360 version is no stranger to these effects, though they manifest themselves less frequently which is definitely a plus.


What about the game in motion then? Well, both versions run at thirty frames per-second (30fps) for the most part, with both slowing down on occasion in certain situations – usually when powersliding around a corner whilst all hell is breaking loose. Like with Pure both versions are remarkably similar and very solid at maintaining their framerates. Both seem to be v-synced, and suffer from only minor frame drops.

The 360 build seems keep up with the demands of the action slightly better than the PS3 one, although the difference is tiny with it rarely dipping below the intended 30fps target, and only occasionally loosing the odd frame to screen tearing. PS3 owners get a version that is mostly identical with very few drops in framerate - just a little more than the 360 - but this barely impacts in any meaningful way during gameplay, still providing a solidly smooth experience for the vast majority of the time.

Whilst both versions seem to be v-synced, I did notice that the PS3 game would tear the occasional frame more often in stressful situations compared to the 360 one, although this difference is very hard to detect by eye, requiring you to be looking out for it. The small amount of screen tear on ether version is only visible for a fraction of a second, and only appears right at the top of the screen, so it isn’t particularly noticeable at all.

In the end both versions perform excellently, with each one rarely dropping framerate for more than a second or so, and the tearing that arises in either build is barely worth mentioning. BlackRock have basically achieved parity across both platforms with any differences being purely un-intrusive and not detrimental to the game in any way.


Texture filtering and detail is like for like across both platforms, as is the modelling and general shader effects. Most alpha effects and particles seem to be rendered in the same resolution on both platforms, with the PS3 getting an equally high-end experience with regards to the games often impressive visuals – especially the lighting which looks incredible when in full bloom. Some smoke and flame effects look slightly lower on PS3, but it's hard to notice when playing the game.

Post processing is another matter, in which it is clear that the effect has been dialled back slightly on the PS3 game. You can see this in the shot below where the 360 game features what looks like a slightly stronger blur-styled effect over the PS3 one.

It’s this effect in tandem with the lower 672 resolution, that gives the 360 build a clear loss in sharpness, but also a greater reduction in jaggies than what 2xMSAA would usually provide. However, there is also a strong case for the PS3 build and the sharper overall display it provides, although the differences are less apparent in motion than they are in still screens.


Overall, BlackRock have done a mostly excellent job in maintaining platform parity to the point where there really isn’t all that much in it.

The PS3 definitely benefits from having a slightly higher vertical resolution and the shaper display it provides. From a raw technical perspective is arguably superior, but then again, the 360 version features less jagged lines due to both the use of anti-aliasing combined with the slightly greater post processing effects over the PS3. The upscaled nature of the game may also help in this regard, with the slight blur adding more AA in areas in which the MSAA would usually fail.

Either way both versions perform smoothly with very little in the way of framerate drops or troublesome screen tear, and the differences in screen composition when the game is in motion are not as apparent as they are in still screens. Certainly, I'd say that most people will be satisfied whichever version they decide to go for.

It’s tit for tat, and given the choice I would probably take the 360 game with its reduced amount of jagged edges, along with a controller that is more suited to racing games if I absolutely had to pick - although I do prefer the sharpness of the PS3 version, and the higher resolution overall.

So in conclusion, Split Second is solid on both systems with your choice most likely coming down to which controller you prefer using, or which online network all your friends will be playing on. BlackRock’s latest is a good example of balanced multi-platform development, and where the differences between each version isn’t at all detrimental to the experience.

Tech Analysis: Red Dead Redemption (360 vs PS3)

There’s no doubt that Rockstar are onto another success story with Red Dead Redemption. Piece together the same kind of open worldliness as in Grand Theft Auto IV, along with some traditionally styled old west action, and you have another finely crafted and life-consuming experience. If there were ever a game to make your Clint Eastwood fantasies come true, then RDR would be it.

The underlying engine behind the game is based on the same impressive tech that powered 2008’s GTA IV, expanded upon, tweaked and refined, perhaps pushing the most it can get out of the current consoles. Well, without a complete rewrite that is. And like with the GTA IV conversion, there are many similarities between the two games. Everything from the rendering resolution and the use of anti-aliasing can be plucked right out of Rockstar’s last multiplatform title, so it’s no surprise that some of what you’ll be hearing today is at least vaguely familiar.

Starting off, as always with the rendering resolution. RDR is presented in 720p (1280x720) on the Xbox 360 using 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing), whilst on PS3 is rendered in a slightly lesser 1152x640 and using the alternative QAA (quincunx anti-aliasing).

Straight away you can see that Red Dead is exactly the same as GTAIV in this regard, with the 360 benefiting from decent edge smoothing, and the PS3 having to make do with the blurrier quincunx solution. This choice appears a little odd, as both 2xMSAA and the standard QAA take up roughly the same amount of memory and processing requirements. So why use the poorer QAA option in the first place?



Well, the most obvious explanation is that the QAA in theory delivers more edge smoothing for the same memory cost as the conventional MSAA, so thus there should be less in the way of jagged edges. However the consequence is that QAA not only smoothens polygon edges, but also blurs general pixel details in the entire scene. So textures along with geometry become blurred, creating a softer overall image. Bizarrely the use of this QAA seems to be selective, with some edges getting clear levels of jaggies reduction, and others without.

Unlike in GTAIV, in which the blur effect actually added an ambience and a layer of atmosphere to the proceedings, in Red Dead it does nothing of the sort. The gritty environments of GTA made the QAA look fit in well with the game world, and the 360’s dithered textures made the loss of sharpness a worthy compromise on PS3. However RDR on 360 doesn’t really suffer from any dithering textures. Or rather, that the effect has been greatly reduced, and the bright and dusty open world nature of the game benefits from a sharper image, meaning that the blur effect simply heightens the differences between the two versions.

The 360 build however, isn’t free from criticism either. The high contrasting edges between the buildings with the bright blue sky often leads to noticeable shimmering, sometimes as bad as seen in the PS3 build. Most of the time these jaggies are in fact smoother than the ones seen on its PS3 counterpart but shimmer in the same way.

Essentially MSAA works by taking samples from two adjacent pixels, and then combines those samples with the final image to form an anti-aliased one. With edges in high contrast areas, there isn’t enough information to create decent samples to act as in betweens where the two pixels meet, thus the image receives either no AA altogether, or a significantly reduced amount.



In terms of texture detail and filtering, both versions are identical. Texture resolution seems to be the same on either platform with the lower 640p resolution of the PS3 game resulting in some additional blurring of the visible detail. This is caused by both the upscaled nature of the framebuffer, and the use of QAA, in which we’ve already discussed the technique’s unwanted side effects.

Anisotropic filtering is evident in the screenshots below, as is the blurred nature of the PS3 version’s textures, and general screen composition. The levels of AF don’t appear to be much higher than what is usually available with the older trilinear method of filtering. So we are looking at perhaps 4x AF for Red Read on both platforms.



One area of the game that has been noticeably paired back on the PS3, is the heavy use of alpha-based foliage. This seems to be the main reason for the lower resolution of the PS3 version and it’s use of a more aggressive LOD (level of detail) system in certain scenarios.

As we’ve discussed before at IQGamer, the use of alpha heavy transparency effects for objects like hair and foliage use up a huge amount of bandwidth, a commodity which is particularly limited in home consoles, but especially on the PS3 with its lack of high speed EDRAM. It’s this bandwidth advantage which allows the 360 to not only render more foliage on screen, but also render it at a higher resolution as well.

These two shots show exactly how much of the foliage has been cut back on the PS3 game. Notice how it is mostly only the smaller plants and grasses that have been culled, which actually has less of an impact during play than you might expect. However it’s also pretty clear that the environments in the 360 version look visibly more dense as a result of having loads more minor pieces of foliage.

Some major parts of the foliage have also been cut on PS3 too. When this happens, the Sony version of RDR looks much blander as a result, taking away some of that ‘living world’ look that the game at times possesses.



Whilst both versions use A2C (alpha-to-coverage) for the surrounding foliage - a memory saving technique for rendering half resolution transparencies in an interlaced type manner - the 360 version clearly benefits from better alpha blending through the use of A2C in conjunction with 2xMSAA.

On the other hand, the PS3’s use of QAA and low-resolution foliage makes for a poorer blend overall, and some unsightly shimmering artifacts which don’t look too great with the blurred nature of the framebuffer.

As regular readers of this blog might know, A2C also creates a screen door effect on all transparencies and textures that use it. MSAA is used to blend away this unwanted effect, and the more AA used, and the higher the resolution of the A2C textures, the better the overall result will be. For RDR the PS3 game and its use of low-res foliage and QAA simply makes the screen door effect stand out far more than it does on the 360. By contrast, it’s barely noticeable in motion in the 360 build.



Along with a reduced foliage count, the PS3 game appears to feature a more aggressive LOD system as well. It’s not so much the issue of objects being cut back on the PS3 build, but also of objects popping into view later than in the 360 one. Geometry changes, shadow pop, and object pop in are all more noticeable on the PS3. Although these do occur on 360, but to a far lesser extent.

Below you can see the differences between the two versions. Notice how the water effects and shadowing have been cut back on the PS3, with entire shadows missing altogether. Detail in the distance has been deduced, with buildings featuring simpler levels of geometry, and with some objects being completely omitted from the scene.

The PS3 version also suffers from some other LOD issues as well. In towns and small outposts, as you approach the buildings the shadows pop in a lot later in the PS3 build compared to the 360. They appear more erratically on the PS3, whereas on 360 they appear smoothly on screen from further into the distance, and in a far more succinct manner.

The reason why, on occasion, that so much detail has been reduced in the PS3 build, is due partially to the game’s lower resolution in combination with the blur inducing QAA, and what appears to be a more forceful LOD system.

Either way, the Sony game suffers far more from LOD issues and the overall more aggressive LOD system in place for RDR. Unlike in GTAIV, the whole game has been designed around sprawling vistas, and wondrous views into the far distance. So its no surprise that some large compromises had to be made for the PS3 build, especially where trying to keep a more consistant frame rate is concerned.



Red Dead Redemption aims to keep a steady 30 frames per-second framerate at all times, but both versions deal with doing this a little differently. Like with many multi-platform titles, the PS3 build is focused on eliminating screen tear at the expense of maximum smoothness, being v-synced that is, and the framerate also capped at 30fps maximum to ensure it never goes above this level.

The 360 build on the other hand is more concerned with maintaining as smoothest framerate as possible. And to that end the framerate hasn’t been capped at all, with the game running between 40 to 50fps in certain scenarios. This mainly happens when on foot, and in enclosed locations without much in the way of foliage and environment detail.

Most noticeably is the fact that the 360 game isn’t v-synced, or v-locked at all, meaning that it is prone to screen tearing in stressful situations or fast camera pans. The tearing only ever appears at the top of the screen, and stops halfway across the screen, almost like the game has caught up with the problem.

By contrast the PS3 game never tears any frames at all, remaining completely free of the problem regardless of what is happening on screen. However, it does drop framerate badly in heavy load situations, far more than the 360 game. When this happens, the screen can crawl with jagged edges and shimmering foliage in areas in which the QAA isn’t applied, and where the A2C blend fails to work successfully.

Both versions do massively drop their framerate in heavy load situations, but it’s the PS3 one that seems to be more greatly affected by such dips in performance.

So it is safe to say that performance wise the 360 version has the edge, and that the screen tearing present on that version of the game isn’t much of an issue, being barely noticeable for much of the time. By contrast, the PS3 build features a small drop in IQ over the already worse 640p resolution and use of QAA whenever the framerate drops. That said, neither version maintains the target 30fps for long, with constant dips below all throughout the game.



Moving on, we can see that in terms of lighting and shading there are differences in both versions of the game. For the most part they are both largely identical, but in certain circumstances the PS3 build actually features more light reflections and extra shadows cast in indoor areas, and the 360 build gets self-shadowing on all characters, which are absent for some on PS3.

The lighting differences don’t always seem to be technical achievements, but rather technical anomalies, in which it seems more likely that there is a rendering error on the 360 build compared to the PS3 one. Although we cannot be sure as to why this is happening without knowing the ins and outs of how Rockstar’s engine renders its shadows and lighting in detail.

In the screenshots below you can see how the PS3 version is casting a light source from outside and through the window, into the scene indoors. Whereas on 360 it is clear that the only light source affecting the characters is the one coming from the wall-mounted lamp.

The light source that is cast through the doors and windows on the PS3 game also casts shadows from the characters and onto the grown. Something that is also absent from the 360 build, which again only gets shadows from indoor lighting.

Thankfully these scenes are few and far in between as most of the game is set outside, in which there are only a few minor cloud shadow oddities in the 360 build. However it does mean that in indoor scenes the PS3 clearly demonstrates better use of lighting, whether that be due to an error or otherwise.



The 360 build however, does have the benefit of having both sharper and higher quality shadows for character and environmental objects. All characters on 360 have the benefits of using self-shadowing – shadows that are cast upon characters by themselves - which gives them an extra depth and three-dimensional look.

On PS3 characters generally look flatter than their 360 counterparts, with some lacking self-shadowing altogether, and others simply having the effect paired back over the 360 build.

It’s pretty obvious in the screenshots below how superior the shadowing can be in the 360 game. Notice how much extra in the way of depth the self-shadows can add over environment shadowing and lighting.



In the end, despite the differences we can still see that what Rockstar’s engine has achieved on both platforms is pretty impressive, with it’s ability to render miles of detailed scenery and still keep up a decent framerate outside of strenuous encounters. Red Dead Redemption may not be artistically pleasing to everyone, but is still a mean technical achievement. It is however, one which favours the strengths of Microsoft’s console, with the 360’s superior vertex processing capabilities and greater memory bandwidth.

From what we’ve uncovered today, it’s pretty clear that the 360 demonstrates superior technical prowess when it comes to handling the wide and open-world nature of Red Dead Redemption. Unlike in GTAIV, a far-reaching field of view is absolutely required in order for a game like RDR to accurately represent the time and period in which it’s set. And it’s also exactly the type of engine that is ill suited to PS3’s lack of bandwidth and vertex shader power.

It comes as no surprise then, to see that without large buildings and natural structures hiding far off areas, that Rockstar had little option but to noticeably cut back on the sheer amount of geometry present in the PS3 game. After all, you can’t start culling much in the way of unseen polygons when the game requires most of this detail to visible from far into the distance. Instead the only thing left to do is cut away at the foliage, sap away some of the resolution and try to make the best of what you’ve got left.

However most of these differences aren’t all that visible unless you’ve seen one version, and then moved on to playing the other. Someone whose only ever seen the PS3 game is more than likely not to notice most of the issues we’ve highlighted in our tech analysis, and will still enjoy the many superb experiences Red Dead has to offer. Perhaps the only thing that IS noticeable is the blurred nature of the game owning to the use of QAA. In that respect it is the game’s largest issue, and the one which takes away the most from the experience.

In conclusion, our recommendation rests with the 360 version. There’s simply no doubt that it’s use of a higher resolution, proper MSAA, better LOD detail, better shadowing system, plus more stable overall performance makes it the better of the two. This isn’t a case of GTAIV, in which the slightly blurred look adds to the visual style of the game world, but rather that every part of RDR benefits from having a generally cleaner and clearer look about it, with more detail and a smoother framerate all gelling it together.

However, that said there’s no reason for people with access to only a PS3 not to pick up Rockstar’s latest. As we’ve stated above, that unless you’ve seen the two versions running you’ll unlikely to notice most of the differences, and the game itself is the same on both platforms, being an utterly absorbing experience at times, and one of the best open world games to date.

Thanks to MazingerDUDE for the majority of our comparison screenshots, and as always, to Quaz51 for his exemplary pixel counting skills.

Tech Analysis: Lost Planet 2 (PS3 vs 360)

The original Lost Planet represented exactly how not to not to do a PS3 conversion. Sticking to the basic approach of trying to port the overall engine in a like for like manner, despite clear architectural differences, resulted in one of the worst multi-platform PS3 conversions to come out of any studio at the time.

Missing a large amount of geometry and texture detail from its 360 counterpart, in addition to featuring low resolution effects, and only temporal 2xMSAA, the port suffered greatly losing a large chunk of image quality in the process. It also struggled to maintain a smooth framerate, thus accentuating the game’s poor use of anti-aliasing and lack of fine detail.

Lost Planet 2 on the other hand is nothing like that dreadful port of the first game. Instead Capcom have built upon the finely tuned refinements they made with the first MT Framework engine on Resident Evil 5, carrying over the optimisations to the new 2.0 version used here in Lost Planet 2. Many of the improvements that were to found in the PS3 version of that game are also found here too. However whereas Resi 5 demonstrated some significant differences in anti-aliasing, texture filtering and framerate, LP2 is a far closer affair, for the most part achieving platform parity throughout the game, minus a few issues here and there.

Like with Resi 5, Lost Planet 2 is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both formats, with the 360 getting the standard application of 2xMSAA and the PS3 game getting no AA of any kind. The result is that both versions appear clean and very sharp, with jagged edges surprisingly manifesting themselves in almost equal amounts in certain scenes.

The differences are easily spotted in the shots below, where we can see that both versions look almost like for like, with only very subtle differences that are mainly caused be the two machines internally different gamma levels, and the PS3 version missing a few effects in places.

With regards to the 360 version displaying almost equal amounts of aliasing to the PS3 one, this can be explained away by how the game is rendering its lighting. LP2’s use of heavy HDR and high levels of strongly defined light sources all create high contrast edges, so when edge samples are taken by the MSAA they are so similar to the un-anti-aliased edges, that in the end some parts of the scene just don’t get any AA at all. This means that the screen can crawl with jaggies on both versions, though it is more apparent on the PS3 version as it has no AA to help control the problem.



In terms of texture detail and filtering both versions seem to be pretty much equal in most scenarios, which is particularly impressive given the scale of the environments and the amount of bandwidth stealing particle effects on screen at any given time.

Some subtle differences in texture quality are apparent between both platforms, but they aren’t really all that visible during actual gameplay. In some scenes textures appear more detailed on the 360 than on the PS3. You can also just about see that the 360 version edges it ever so slightly when it comes to fine detail, though you can only see this when scrutinising still screens, and not when the game is in action.


At some points however, there are noticeable cut backs in overall texture quality on PS3. Although this isn't apparent in all areas of the game, when it does happen it definitely takes away from the experience.

Some stages seem to be more affected than others, and below is a clear example.


What is surprising is that both PS3 and 360 versions of the game feature the use of anisotropic filtering (AF). Previously it was pretty much a given that games on the PS3 would benefit from the use of AF when the on 360 the same game would be using only a trilinear or bilinear solution.

Because the PS3 has more texture units in its RSX GPU than 360’s Xenos, AF basically comes for free on Sony’s machine. Whereas on Microsoft’s system there is normally some sort of memory or performance hit for using it, much like in the way that 2xMSAA is usually commonplace for the 360 but not for PS3.

Either way, both versions benefit from having clean and clear texturing that is visible for several feet into the distance. This was also apparent in Super Street Fighter IV, which first showed Capcom’s improved multiplatform use of AF.



Shadowing looks to be identical between both versions, with any differences being down to the gamma levels of each system. What is noticeable is that in really dark areas of the screen some shadow detail is mildly crushed in the 360 game, with the darkest parts appearing almost completely black instead of clearly showing the faintest of details. The PS3 game with the console’s higher gamma manages to achieve greater amounts of shadow detail, which show up a lot more clearly in dark sections and in character and object shadows.

There are of course downsides caused by the lighter shadows on the PS3 version despite the welcomed increase in noticeable detail. The sense of depth is slightly lessened leaving an overall image with less three-dimensionality compared to the 360 game, although the like for like quality of the actual shadows means this is more of an observation than a complaint.



Visual effects in general have also seen major improvements in Lost Planet 2, with the vast majority of effects looking the same on both platforms. Again, like with the texturing, certain scenes do take a noticeable hit, while others are practically identical. Smoke and particles are once again slightly lower res on the PS3 game - although not the extent of the first Lost Planet - and are less noticeable here than they were in Resi 5, particulary with the larger effects which I believe are the same in both versions.

This shot below shows off the worse case scenario of the PS3 game missing various effects found in the 360 build. Water and some shiny surfaces seem to be the main area in which certain effects have been cut back on.


Despite these differences in some scenes, it’s pretty impressive seeing how close Capcom have managed to create near-identical copies of the game visually on both systems, for the most part at least. In motion it’s only the PS3’s lack of AA which consistently shows up crawling jagged edges and a very slight drop in IQ in these areas.

Sadly, there are times when the game looks noticeably worse, though thankfully this doesn't happen all that often, especially nowhere near to the level of the first game on PS3. When it does happen however, it manages to undermine some of the hard work Capcom have done on the conversion. Which is a shame, because at times the two versions really do look identical.



So, you could say that it’s mostly par the course for parity then? Well, not quite, as whilst both versions maintain similar levels of graphical fidelity, with some exceptions in certain areas, the same cannot be said when in motion.

Like with Resident Evil 5, both PS3 and 360 versions of LP2 deal with framerate and screen tear differently. The PS3 game tends to hold v-sync in order to prevent any untoward screen tearing, along with what looks like the return of double-buffering – a process of generating a spare frame just in case the one about to be used gets torn – but in the process at the expense of obtaining a stable framerate.

This means that screen tear is pretty much non-existant in the Sony game, but the framerate instead constantly takes a dive from the targeted 30fps update in busy scenes. In large boss battle and parts of the game filled with large enemies the framerate hits between 10 to 20fps, creating what can only be described as a brief slideshow of movement.

I also noticed that the controls seemed to be a little more laggy on the PS3, which aroused my suspicions to the inclusion of the double-buffering. Although this isn’t a 100% conformation, but a solid assumption based on both this controller lag and Capcom’s previous use of the technique.

The 360 game on the other hand, instead allows the screen to tear more frequently but consequently maintains that 30fps update far more often. Interestingly, LP2 actually seems to be v-synced on 360, at least partially – something that was absent completely from Resi 5, and this on occasion can lead to terrible drops in fluidity which are pretty unsightly to say the least.

However, this only really happens during certain boss battles, and usually manifests itself in the cut-scenes rather than in actual gameplay, so although it isn’t too impacting, you can’t help but notice it.

Perhaps this is the most substantial issue between either version of the game, which is a shame as Capcom have really excelled at making Lost Planet 2 at times, a near identical experience regardless of which version you own. Everything but the use of AA, and the lower-res, paired down effects are basically the same between both versions - occasional texture issues aside - and it’s only the frequent drops in framerate that really set them apart the majority of the time.


In the end Capcom have pulled off a pretty successful multiplatform title in Lost Planet 2. It may be too much to expect a complete identikit release graphically, but most of the glaring flaws and visual differences have been addressed to some degree. Sadly the same cannot be said for the game itself, in which we awarded a rather disappointing 6/10 in our review.

For all the technical achievements the developers have managed to weave together, the underlying gameplay issues and fundamentals almost break the game at times. So much so, that for the most part Lost Planet 2 is a partially polished but unsatisfactory experience.

Tech analysis updated: extra screens and further details representing the more severe differences.

Tech Analysis: Alan Wake

I will warn you now, that this tech analysis for Alan Wake is an incredibly long and in-depth affair. With Remedy’s latest there is so much going on, and individual parts which make up the overall look and feel of the game, that after you’ve covered one thing, you’ve also just discovered another.

So, rather than skimp over the little details which might actually have a pretty large impact in he overall scheme of things, what we’ve done, is to try and deliver the most comprehensive look at the tech present in making up the world of Bright Falls, one of this years most defining visual achievements.

Usually it’s Sony’s PS3 exclusives that garner such attention and technical praise, often delving deep into the hardware to deliver an visual experience that on so many technical levels is almost unmatched by most other titles on competing platforms – PC of course excluded, but that’s a given really. Microsoft on the other hand, have a machine with a comprehensive set of development tools that are so much more traditional and easier to get to grips with what Sony have provided for the PS3, that in most cases developers are quite happy to think inside the established box when it comes to crafting that show-stopping visual showcase expected for current-generation games.

However, some developers such are beginning to break out of that cycle, creating a graphical experience which rivals that of Uncharted 2, Killzone 2 and God Of War 3. Both Bungie with Halo Reach, and Remedy with Alan Wake, are pushing the envelope of what is possible on MS’s machine, showing gamers and developers that what is possible in a PS3 custom-made approach title is also possible on the 360.

Last week we took an in-depth look at Halo Reach, casting our critical eye over the overall workings of the tech. Today IQGamer looks closely at Remedy’s Alan Wake, a game no stranger to controversy or our very own tech analysis, in which for this feature, we will be finally evaluating the tile whilst also attempting to fully uncover the truth behind that 540p rendering resolution.

Alan Wake, to cut away any lingering doubts or speculation does indeed render in 960x540 resolution, which is then upscaled by the 360 to form a final 720p image. Not all aspects of the game are rendered in this sub-HD resolution – with some effects actually being closer towards 720p – and the game does use an impressive 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing at all times, a side effect of which is not only a clear reduction of jagged lines but also a much cleaner upscale.

The result of rendering in 540p isn’t quite as bad as what you might expect, with fine detail still being present, and the soft look of the game actually appearing quite clean and clear compared to some other sub-HD games. No doubt that the use of 4xMSAA actually helps in reducing any upscaling artefacts, whilst keeping the image relatively clean in the process. Softness, as obvious as it is, is the by-product of this, but its inclusion actually helps in creating the creepy atmosphere found in the game, along with the shadowy and foggy night time visuals all feeding a real sense of immersion.


It’s pretty clear from the screenshot above just how good Alan Wake looks for a game that is decidedly more sub-HD than many others on the market. But why did Remedy opt for using such a low resolution so late in the development cycle? And what happened to claims of rendering in 720p with 4xMSAA?

Well, you only have to look at last years gameplay footage in order to find out, which does indeed render in full 720p whilst sporting 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. Before this, Alan Wake was rendering at the standard 720p with 2xMSAA, in addition to having full resolution particle and transparency (framebuffer) effects. However the game suffered from constant screen-tearing and drops in framerate, no doubt as the engine struggle to cope with the game’s intense bandwidth requirements

It is pretty obvious that Alan Wake as a game is extremely bandwidth heavy, rendering all those fog, mist, smoke, and transparent particle effects. Transparencies are littered all over the game’s fictional town of Bright Falls, and the engine unsurprisingly was struggling to cope.

Originally Remedy simply decided to change from rendering full resolution effects to instead using half-res alpha-to-coverage effects (A2C), thus saving some bandwidth needed to keep performance up. However, A2C has the unfortunate side effect of giving all transparencies that use it an unsightly screen door effect. The only solution is to effectively up the level of anti-aliasing to 4xMSAA in order to blend away the A2C into the rest of the scene.

Despite these changes it’s clear that the game still suffered from severe performance issues, with tearing once again being at the forefront of those. In an interview the developers stated that the screen tear would be part and parcel of the experience, a sign that maybe they where having trouble in keeping things running smoothly. In light of all this, it seems that in order to claw back performance they finally opted to render in a sub-HD resolution to give them a smooth 30fps update and very little screen tear, whilst still having all the benefits of 4xMSAA improving the overall image quality (IQ).

In the end the use of A2C does very little to damage the overall look of the game. Alan’s hair for example (see below screenshot), is using it with very little in the way of noticeable side effects, though if you look closely you can indeed see some of the dithered nature of the A2C at work. The 4xMSAA manages to prevent any noticeable upscaling effects from being visible, and the soft look provided by the lower resolution isn’t particularly intrusive.


There’s not doubt that the game would look much sharper as a result of rendering at 720p over the current 540p framebuffer, however it is likely that many of the outstanding graphical effects and small visual touches would have to have been sacrificed in order to keep performance levels up. With this in mind it’s much better to have a smoother, graphically more impressive game as a whole, than to have a clearer albeit simpler one instead.

Resolution and framebuffer issues out of the way, the rest of Alan Wake’s engine is just as interesting, and serves as a clear technical benchmark for many 360 developers to follow.

The stable framerate for one is a pretty exceptional achievement. Alan Wake maintains a rock solid 30fps ninety-nine percent of the time, with the game instead opting for screen tearing in situations where the engine is struggling to keep a steady hold on things. As a result the game basically never drops frames at all, and when it does, the drop is so insignificant that it is barely even noticeable at all. The downside is that the tearing can get pretty messy at times, covering the image right in the centre of the screen where it is most noticeable.

Thankfully, these situations aren’t too common place, with most of the tearing smoothly appearing for a split second or so, before vanishing as quickly as it came. It should be pointed out though, that the game does tear regularly, although it isn’t at all intrusive in these smaller amounts.

Adding to the stable framerate is the games use of camera-based motion blur, which helps to create that smooth look and feel that the game has throughout. The motion blur is very subtle, never at all intrusive, instead being an organic part of the camera movement. Its implementation is just another part of the artistic flair that is running through every aspect of the game’s visual make up. The screenshot below shows the effect in action, though it seldom has that much of a dramatic impact on the game in motion.


What is surprising, is that the engine in Alan Wake is running at a almost constantly solid 30fps with a high level of dynamic visual effects - from fog, smoke, and particles - whilst also capable of delivering incredible draw distances without dramatically paring back the visual through the use of an aggressive LOD system. The game is full of sprawling vistas, from dense forests to towering mountains, and all of it is largely reachable, with the player travelling between these iconic places many times.

Perhaps, it is for this reason that the game engine has had sacrifices in other areas. Both the framebuffer, alpha effects, and textures have been downgraded by using a lower resolution, as to has parts of the game’s lighting and shadow system.

Originally Alan Wake was going to be a fully-fledged open world action horror, in which the player would be investigating the various paranormal and supernatural occurrences whist trying to find wife Alice and fend off scores of ‘The Taken’. In much of the final game you can clearly see the original open world nature of its design, with large organic multiple paths to take, long draw distances, and the ability to backtrack, go off the beaten path, before heading to you next destination.

The engine used in the final game is still highly optimised for such an experience, so despite the change to a more linear and controlled affair, the engine still has to draw vast distances in high quality, whilst also having to render all those alpha effects, shaders and textures, and keep up framerate at the same time. It’s like having a version of GTA or Just Cause with Uncharted 2 levels of graphical polish, something which is beyond any of the current gen consoles.

A good example can be seen below, in which the game renders detailed scenery for miles for many miles away from the player, with no additional visual effects hiding the incredible draw distances that the engine is capable of.


Texture detail is reasonably high, although the actual textures themselves appear to be of very low resolution. Up close any detail begins to break up, and from a distance they look clean, but at the same time a little blurry. The quality overall is very good, given the game’s 540p framebuffer and various effects that the engine is pushing around on screen, it’s just a shame that much to the intricate details get so broken up in close range, or blended away when at a distance. Nevertheless there are times in which the combination of artistic flair and attention to detail really show of the textute work.

In term s of filtering it’s not entirely clear what is going on in Alan Wake. Assessing levels of texture filtering by eye is always a difficult proposition, however it is possible to make so well placed judgements as to what is happening.

At times texture detail is visible for a good 16 feet or so into the distance before becoming blurry, whilst in other scenarios texture fidelity is lost just a few feet away from Alan himself. In these later scenes, it would appear that the game is perhaps using bilinear filtering (BF) at best, although that would fail to explain the clarity in other scenes. Instead, my best guess is that Remedy are actually using a combination of anisotropic (AF) and bilinear filtering for the textures, alternating between large amounts of AF and BF combined, to very little AF with no BF at all.

You could call this a ‘filtering bias’ with some scenes getting more filtering that others. But at the same time witn all the fog, mist and other effects going on at night, it is hard to make a solid judgement call on this. At the very least TF is definitely present, with small levels of AF in parts.


Unmistakably though, the use of high levels of visual effects such as volumetric fog, smoke, particles, and the impressively accurate dynamic lighting and shadowing system, is what puts Alan Wake above so many other titles available on either the 360 or the PS3. It’s these effects that work so well with the A2C and 4xMSAA that any hit in pure sharpness taken away by the 540p resolution isn’t on many occasions all that apparent. Especially in night time scenes in which all the visual effects come together, with loads of moving elements on screen pretty much most of the time.

The fog, shadows, light, foliage and physics based objects are cast their own shadows, some simply being pre-baked shadow maps, other being fully dynamic reacting to a multitude of light sources and environmental objects. The fog for example, interacts with the game’s lighting, with light shining through it, moving over the trees and the foliage, casting shadows for most objects in its path.

A hazy mist is also present during the environments at dusk and at night, which both reacts with light along with blending into the black fog which appears as ‘The Taken’ arrives, creating an ambience that adds to the tension felt throughout the experience.

Some of these effects do appear to be rendering at a lower resolution than the rest of the game. The fog in particular is pretty low res, which tends to blur everything in its path, obscuring detail and almost warping the game world. The blur doesn’t impact too much on the overall graphical feel that Remedy is going for, and at times actually benefits it. Sadly when the fog makes its way to cleaner areas, such as town buildings or remote gas stations, the blur effect is more noticeable, and less impressive.


For shadowing the game uses a combination of high and low resolution shadows, both static (pre-baked) and dynamic. The ones used in doors are most noticeably low res, as are some of the dynamic shadows cast by the players touch as they explore Bright Falls. However in outside areas, in which there is so many other effects going on, it’s incredibly hard to notice the odd poor quality shadow.

The games lighting also helps to back the mixture of shadow quality and various other visual effects. Light given off by the players touch casts shadows from objects all around the environment, as do flares and flashbangs, which dynamically change the surrounding shadows. This is perhaps the most impressive thing in Alan Wake’s graphics engine, the uniformity between light and shadow, the dynamic interaction between both, and how this helps create a beautifully organic look to the visuals on offer.

It is safe to say that the quality of these effects on offer in Alan Wake is perhaps some of the best we’ve seen in any console or PC title to date. Resolution issues aside, the consistency and quality seen here is a pretty impressive feat, given the constraints the developers have had to work with and the many issues faced along the way.


Overall the tech behind Alan Wake is extremely impressive. The game is at times combining several different transparency heavy effects together, along with a fully dynamic lighting and shadowing system, whilst maintaining incredibly high draw distances at a near perfect 30fps.

Certainly, things have been sacrificed in order to achieve this level of visual performance, but those sacrifices haven’t damaged the game in any significant way. In fact, most of the issues caused by the low resolution effects and 540p rendering resolution are barely noticeable during most of your time spent in Bright Falls, which is spent in a surreal world of darkness. This darkness helps hide much of the game’s graphical shortcomings, blending them in, and actually increasing the level of immersion to be found all through Mr Wake’s adventure.

Remedy, like with all the most highly talented developers, have shown just how to work in and around any limitations of the current platform they are developing for, making concessions in certain areas, whilst scaling back in others to ensure that the whole visual make up is as polished as it is balanced.

Alan Wake in this regard, represents exactly the right design choices made for the game at hand. Generating atmosphere to completely embody the player is paramount to the experience, and is something that the developers have achieved with the underlying engine behind the game. It isn’t always about getting all the elements together in the most technically advanced way possible. But instead, about making sure that each of the individual pieces fit together succinctly, and not just as separate visual standpoints in which to admire.

In conclusion, there’s no doubt that Remedy have achieved exactly what they have set out to do with Alan Wake, creating a game which is as gripping as it is visually alluring. For all the use of high-end tech that is powering the game, it is the carefully and often cleverly crafted nature of the art design which makes the package such a success. And whilst it may not have all the high definition goodness of Sony’s Uncharted 2, it more than matches it in sheer technical brilliance and pure artistic direction.

Tech Analysis: Halo Reach Beta

You may remember that we did an initial tech analysis on some of the first in-game screenshots of Halo Reach way back in February, in which we discovered that the underlying engine behind the game had been completely reworked, and overhauled in such a way, that there was a large noticeable jump in quality over both Halo 3 and ODST.

Certain things still eluded us however, such as the game’s final rendering resolution, or whether or not Bungie could still afford to keep their trademark high-end HDR lighting system firmly stamped in the final build. The beta we said would finally be the place in which we could get a tangible look at the tech behind the game. And so today at IQGamer that’s exactly what we’ll be doing, ripping apart the engine behind Halo Reach and revealing just how far it’s come from its early Halo 3, and original Xbox beginnings.

The first thing to say, is that the engine powering Halo Reach is more of a giant evolutionary step forward rather than a brand new revolutionary driving force. That said it is a vastly superior beast in every way shape and form compared to the engine used in the previous two games. Boasting numerous improvements, from rendering resolution, texture work, lighting, shader effects, and character modelling, everything has seen an overhaul. Some areas have only been subtly enhanced, while others have been completely changed, making for not only a large boost in image quality, but also a smoother looking game as a result.


One of the main complaints in Halo 3 and ODST besides the lack of any anti-aliasing, was the game’s sub-HD rendering resolution. Both titles rendered at 1152x640 in a dual framebuffer, which came together to form the final 640p image. For Reach Bungie have upper the game’s resolution, albeit ever so slightly, just enough it seems to be able to be loosely qualified as 720p. Reach basically renders in 1152x720p, keeping the horizontal resolution the same as Halo 3 and ODST whilst upping the vertical res - which is the one that the human eye is most sensitive to, thus the most important to increase.

It is also likely that the developers opted for this 1152x720p resolution in order to keep the framebuffer firmly fitting into the 10MB EDRAM, which is something that seems to be a priority for Reach. Even with all the enhancements and additions made to the game engine, they still want to avoid tilling.

In addition to this increase in resolution, Halo Reach also retains the unique HDR lighting implementation from the last two games. The effect has been reduced somewhat, appearing to be of a slightly shorter range compared to the ultra wide range lighting on offer in the last game. However it has been bolstered by the use of far more local lights, and a brand new differed dynamic lighting system featuring dozens of individual lights on screen at once.


This new lighting system means that there can be upward of thirty or more light sources on screen at once, given off via weapons fire, explosions, and environmental lighting, such as the glow given off from lights inside buildings. All of these light sources are real-time, and interact with their surroundings. So a gunshot, or rounds from a Needler will light up surrounding areas, and change the shadows created by moving objects. Each individual projectile from the Needler also has its own light source, as do many other projectiles in the game, which is a first for the series and is exactly what you’d expect from next-generation lighting techniques.

Shadowing is a mix of pre-baked and dynamic. All the environmental shadows in the game are baked shadow maps, stationary and un-reactive. Moving objects however, are given the proper real-time treatment, with full dynamic shadows to complement the use of multiple light sources in the game. Shadows on these react to both other objects and the environment, with neighbouring light sources affecting how they are displayed.


SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) is also present in the beta, though it is only visible on indoor areas, and isn’t used anywhere else. It’s implementation is pretty much artifact free, and blends almost perfectly with the baked shadow maps in the dark areas which use it. Bungie had originally stated that it wouldn’t feature in the beta, but clearly, its here for all too see, if very subtle at this point. We expect that the use of SSAO will extend to the outdoor areas in the final game, if only for the single player campaign.

In terms of texturing, detail, and filtering, Reach has seen a massive improvement over Halo 3 and ODST. Texture detail has been significantly increased, with better use of normal and environmental bump mapping creating a depth and detail that simply wasn’t there before. Texture filtering, one of the main complaints with the last two game, has seen a huge boost. Reach uses what looks like a combination of anisotropic (AF) and trilinear (TF) filtering for all of its textures, meaning that detail is now visible for longer distances than before. You can see this at work in the screenshot below.


The other main complaint from the last two games, the lack of any anti-aliasing, has also been approached, though not completely dealt with. Reach uses a form of AA known as ‘temporal anti-aliasing’, which works by blending two separate frames together whilst combining them during a time delay, creating a 2xMSAA look on certain objects and geometry when the game isn’t moving. However, the down side is that when there is any movement this form or AA causes a distinct blur effect, not unlike the motion blur encountered on a old LCD TV, and one which is highlighted by the game’s use of a post process motion blur effect.

Also, another downside is that certain objects, such as the 2D foliage, aren’t affected by this form of AA, leaving them with noticeably jagged edges. This doesn’t blend in too well with parts of the game that do benefit from the temporal AA, and just showcases another problem with using this technique. A proper MSAA solution would have been far more beneficial, though Bungie would have then have to use tiling to fit the framebuffer into the 10MB EDRAM.


Despite these issues, Reach in beta form is still a great looking game, and features some impressive high resolution particle effects, debris at lower resolution, good use of transparency effects, tessellated water, and a nice bit of bloom lighting to top it all off. The whole visual range feels a lot more organic than before, even with the Halo series’ typically clean lines and smooth industrial look.

All this is backed up with an accurate post-process motion blur effect, one that is even more impressive than the one created by Namco for use in the PS3 and 360 versions of Tekken 6. Reach’s motion blur technique, like in Tekken 6, works on an individual object basis, and is incredibly accurate. Unfortunately, it so obviously interferes with the temporal AA used in the game, creating some unwanted ghosting and being pretty intrusive when you least want it to be.


Like with Halo 3 and ODST, Reach aims to maintain a constant 30 frames per-second at all times, without breaking the v-sync that’s in place. Occasionally it does do this creating some mild screen tearing, but this is usually relegated to one or two frames appearing at the top of the screen. The game does slow down however, mainly in busy scenarios, but that scarcely seems to affect the amount of tearing that appears to any great extent, meaning that the v-sync is working as it should do.

In many ways Halo: Reach is simply using the backbone of the previous game engine, reworking and enhancing it along the way, using it to blend in new graphical improvements with tried and tested old ones. At the same time it still manages to work in the tight constraints of the 360’s EDRAM. Not so surprisingly we don’t get a proper 720p (1280x720) rendering resolution, or multi-sampling AA. However the game’s cleaver new LOD system allows the screen to be filled with dozens of detailed objects and light sources, whilst retaining most of the HDR lighting from the last two games, and still include some excellent texture filtering.

So far the multiplayer beta has certainly impressed, especially with its use of effects that we thought would probably just feature heavily in the single player campaign. Instead Bungie have seen fit to try and include all of the technological improvements the revised engine has to offer for both single and multiplayer modes. The game is clearly visually superior to its predecessors in nearly every way, minus the blur caused by the AA, and still has a good couple of months to go before its done and out the door.

It should be interesting to see just how far the main campaign has come along, and whether they have managed to further improve on the foundations laid down in the beta. Certainly, what we’ve seen today looks better than the early screenshots of the single player gameplay, and no doubt that the final code will look even better. How much better though, will largely depend on how much they insist on pushing the engine for the multiplayer side of things.

All things considered, Halo Reach looks like every bit the next-generation Halo game that it predecessors should have been. Of course, the sparse slightly bland look that comes with the Halo universe isn’t going to go away. After all, that IS the look and feel of the series. But at least, for the first time the franchise has actually transcended its old Xbox roots into something that actually feels it belongs, from a visual perspective anyway, on Microsoft’s 360.

Tech Analysis: Super Street Fighter IV (PS3 vs 360)

With nearly every big release here at IQGamer, it is almost a given for us to have our trademark technical analysis to go along with our in-depth review. But with Super SFIV we were considering skipping over the whole tech thing seeing as the differences are so small between the two versions, that whilst the game is running (at the preferred 60 frames per-second) it is almost impossible to tell the differences apart.

That would however, in our humble opinion, be doing our loyal readers a disservice. So instead of simply glazing over the technical aspect with our enthusiastic review, we are going to put Super SFIV through its paces as per usual for the full tech treatment.

Okay, I’ll start be saying that the same things which applied to last years Street Fighter IV, on both PS3 and 360, applies to this Super edition too. Everything from texture work right down to how the shader effects work, are handled in exactly the same way, although rendering resolution is the same on both platforms this time. This means that if you know about how the last game performed on both systems, then you know for the most part how Super SFIV performs as well.


Super Street Fighter IV is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both PS3 and 360, with the 360 getting the usual 2xMSAA (multisampling anti-aliasing), whilst the PS3 version once again features no AA solution of any kind. This lack of AA only really manifests itself in scenes with high levels of brightness, in which such high contrasting areas create a slightly jagged look to the edges of polygons in the game, along with a small amount of edge shimmering too. Most of the time it is barely noticeable at all, and the only benefit is that the 360 game looks slightly cleaner at all times.

During performance of any Super and Ultra moves, along with the real-time pre and post fight intro and ending sequences, the PS3 game no longer drops resolution down from 720p to 1120x630 unlike in SFIV. It seems that through optimisation, that Capcom have managed to solve some of the bandwidth issues that may arise from the fact that PS3’s RSX GPU has access to less overall bandwidth than either the 360, or the Taito Type X-2 board the original SFIV runs upon. Essentially, all the transparency effects that are displayed onscreen during a Super or Ultra move vastly eat into each system’s bandwidth. However, it just so happens that this time around, that capcom have found a way of maintaning full 720p resolution on both platforms at all times.


In addition none of the normal transparencies or special effects have been rendered at lower resolution either, instead solidly maintaining 720p throughout. Quite clearly this increase in resolution isn’t the most noticeable change when comparing the two versions side by side, and especially whilst in motion at a constamt 60fps, in which they both look identical.

Perhaps the most noticeable difference comes in the form of texture detail, or more specifically, from the observation that the 360 version has slightly more detailed textures, which are used in some of the background scenery found in the game. These, along with some of the background objects are indeed rendered in 1120x630 instead of 720p on the PS3 build. You can see this happening clearly in the screenshot below, just look at the trees in the top right hand corner.


At worst, these lower resolution textures and objects make some of the background details appear a little fuzzy when comparing the two in real-time 60fps, though nothing particularly intrusive. Whilst at best, it is barely even noticeable at all, unless of course you switch between seeing the two versions on the fly. But this isn’t something that people usually do when playing games, so it really isn’t an issue, just another observation.

Texture filtering on the other hand looks to be identical on both versions of the game, which is somewhat surprising, considering the PS3 usually gets the exclusive advantage of having almost free use anisotropic filtering. This time around, both PS3 and 360 versions feature equal amounts of AF, with detail being visible far off into the distance. Yet another sign that the game isn’t perhaps pushing the 360 as much as it is the PS3, with all its use of alpha transparency effects sucking away potential performance.


Last time with Street Fighter IV, we noticed that in terms of shadowing on both systems, it was the 360 game that had the obvious advantage. Microsoft’s version featured not only softer shadows than the PS3 game, but also had exclusive use of self-shadowing not found in the Sony build at all.

For Super SFIV this has changed. Now both version feature self-shadowing – where a character casts their own shadow over themselves - as so evident in the screenshot below, while the 360 version also features the use of more natural soft shadows. The PS3 game on the other hand, uses a sharper more conventional shadowing method, although this isn’t visible during fast 60fps gameplay, and is barely visible when the characters are in their ‘standing’ positions.


When it comes down to it, Super SFIV is pretty much equal on both platforms, with the PS3 game becoming even closer to the 360 one compared to last year’s SFIV. Some differences remain, like the lack of any anti-aliasing on the PS3 game, along with one or two missing effects and the occasional lower resolution texture. The use of self-shadowing on the PS3, and equal amounts of texture filtering balance out any differences to the point that when seeing the game in motion it doesn’t really matter at all.

You have to remember as well, that in screenshots the differences are more pronounced, as they also are when you pause both games and view them one after another on the same telly. Of course there is still a small image quality advantage given to the 360 game, but really, this is only visible at certain points throughout the game and not all the time, making it a factual, but somewhat moot point.

In terms of recommendations, both come equally recommended, with your choice most likely to be dictated by what controller options you have available, and not by the very minor graphical differences on offer here. People without a separate arcade stick or specific fighting game control pad would be better suited with the PS3 game, as the Dual Shock or Sixaxis controllers both perform better than the 360 one. On the other hand, 360 owners can still get the same polished experience with the aid of a separate pad or stick.

Either way, both versions are visually superb, and the overall game itself is perhaps the best beat’em up available on current-gen systems. Whichever console you happen to own, Super SFIV is well worth the asking price, especially for fans of the series and people who missed out on the original game. All I’d say is that to get the most out of the experience, then you really need either an arcade stick or USB Sega Saturn pad, and that goes for anyone regardless of the version you happen to end up buying.