Tech Analysis: NFS: Hot Pursuit Demo (PS3 vs 360)

Some studios simply understand the foundations that make for good multi-platform development, and Criterion is at the forefront of those. With an engine custom built to take advantage of both consoles specific strengths, and leveraging near flawless workarounds against their weaknesses, it is no surprise to see that once again they have delivered another exceptional example of high-level PS3 and 360 development.

The tech powering Burnout Paradise showed that one of the key factors in achieving parity across both formats was parallelisation; whereby off loading multiple tasks across multiple CPU threads and processors allowed for nearly every small bit of CPU/GPU time to be used effectively. Scalability was at the core, with the level of overall processing time constantly shifting accordingly between tasks that needed it as and when required.

Criterion understands that spreading the workload and keeping all parts of the rendering engine busy is the main factor in obtaining constantly high performance across the board, and on both platforms. But it’s more than that; optimising the engine so that the core components that make up the graphical look of the game are suited to both platforms, and not just one, plays an equally massive role too.

For Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit Criterion have done exactly that. Like with Burnout Paradise the team have been able to balance out the underlying tech behind the game, with an impressive feature set; including real-time image-based lighting on the cars, beautiful specular highlights, and large, open environments, with cross platform performance that is shockingly soild.



And performance is indeed the first thing that you’ll notice: NFS:HP is clocked at a constant 30fps with absolutely no screen tearing. It goes without saying that both formats are like for like in this regard, and if anything proves that Criterion’s engine delivers on what it set out to do.

The game almost never deviates from its initial 30fps update, only taking a quick drop during some of the more intensive takedown scenes, but never during normal racing/driving. The same thing is true for both PS3 and 360; even when driving around like a lunatic, crashing into scenery and smashing into the sides of your rivals, the game preserves its smoothness with ease.

Along with barely any slowdown, I have to say that it is definitely something of a surprise to see a distinct lack of screen tearing being present during gameplay. NFS:HP seems to continuously maintain v-sync on both PS3 and 360 without needing to drop it in order to preserve framerate. This in contrast to the likes of Split Second in which v-sync is temporarily disengaged in order to ensure more steady performance as a result. But here, there doesn’t seem to be a problem.

However, I must also state that it is incredibly hard to detect extremely minor events of screen tearing in such dark and low contrast areas, so maybe it is possible that the odd frame could be being torn on very brief occasions, though that is not obvious during regular gameplay. Without equipment to measure such things, I can only go by what I’m seeing.



Running at half the framerate of Burnout Paradise (that was 60fps) NFS feels distinctly different to Criterion’s last title, and not just because of the framerate. The handling model has been completely reworked and built up into what feels and looks like a new game, and not a simple re-hash of what has gone before. Though the use of a lower framerate, and this new, slower drifting mechanic has a dramatic effect on the action.

Obviously running at 30fps introduces higher controller latency into the mix, whereby button presses and turns of the analogue stick are ever so slightly less instant than if the game was running at a higher framerate. This latency is definitely apparent over and above the 60fps Burnout Paradise, although it is actually the new handling mechanics, and the use of demo specific cars that make the control seem to have a little more lag than it does.

In fact, when gently moving the left stick to turn you can see that small, almost instant movements are possible, and that it is the way the game plays that brings about this feeling – it is intentional, and reminiscent of the handling found in Black Rock’s Split Second.



So in terms of performance both versions appear pretty much like for like, and we can also see the same thing being applied to the rest of the demo. Looking at screens, and by playing both versions almost side-by-side (flicking back and forth between HDMI inputs) we can see that texture detail, filtering, lighting, and the vast majority of effects are exactly the same on both platforms. It’s basically a solid match, with next to no discernable differences.

However, there was one really small difference that I was able to spot, though you will really have to go looking for it. Some of the specular maps on the game’s road surfaces are rendered in a slightly higher resolution on the 360. You can see this in the screenshot below. Notice how the bump-mapping appears slightly clearer on the 360 build, and slightly more blurred on the PS3.

It’s a very minor observation, one which rears its head on only some surfaces. But to be fair this isn’t something you are ever likely to notice when playing the game. And even if you do, it certainly isn't something that intrudes on the overall experience.



Moving on to the general make up of the game and image quality analysis, and we can see that NFS:HP is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms, with the standard 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) delivering ample edge smoothing.

Interestingly, there seems to be more than just MSAA going on in regards to this; many areas of the game (small pieces of geometry, objects in the distance, and most noticeably, power lines and thin wires) feature a surprising amount of jaggies reduction, more than what is possible with just regular MSAA. Both versions are exactly the same in this regard.

In the night-time police chase section – the only part of the demo we had access to – we can see that despite the low contrast nature of the scene aiding things slightly, that there is far less in the way of overall aliasing than expected on thin surfaces and polygon edges. Looking at still screen shots it is clear than parts of the environment are being smoothed out using another method of image smoothing. Which one, and how, we don’t really know, though the effect is solidly welcome.

However, the sub-pixel issue still appears in areas across the scene, with some objects in the distance still having noticeably shimmering edges, and some undesired shader aliasing. It’s definitely an improvement over what traditional anti-aliasing techniques would have provided, but not quite the clean, artifact free look that it can initially appear to be.

Either way, the use of MSAA plus additional edge smoothing is definitely beneficial, and delivers a tangible improvement over what we expected. It’s not anywhere near as impressive as God Of War 3’s use of MLAA (morphological anti-aliasing), but a nice inclusion nevertheless - many surfaces get great use of smoothing not otherwise obtainable by regular means.



Lastly, the way the lighting has been implemented is another nice plus point in this latest Criterion exploit. The whole game uses something called image-based lighting, whereby the cars are accurately lit by their surrounding environments at all times, meaning that the clouds and other numerous light sources all have an impact on how the cars look throughout the game.

This is done by rendering the environment first, using the more traditional forward rendering method, whilst the cars are done afterwards in a differed rendering pass. The environments have to be done first in order to accurately light and shade the cars; the result being a mightily impressive use of lighting with a level of realism not often seen outside high-end tech demos.



In the end the demo for Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit clearly showcases some of Criterion’s new tech rather nicely, and also manages to prove that their way of thinking when it comes to multi-platform development is in fact the right one. There’s barely any difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of the game, and aside from one small factor they look exactly the same.

The game may not always impressive on an artistic level – I personally don’t really like the night-time demo track all that much, but technically it definitely raises the bar in some respects. Some remaining sub-pixel aliasing isses aside (you need to use supersmapling, which isn’t feasible on consoles), it would be nice to see more developers taking this approach to game development.

Sadly, I wasn’t able to analyse the supposedly more impressive daytime track - it’s locked until one of your friends on both PSN and XBLA has downloaded and played the demo. And rather annoyingly, none of mine have, so a further look will be required when the final game comes out to really see just how well Criterion’s engine, and the overall game it self turns out. While the demo is a nice, intriguing starting point, it is only a tiny chunk of what the final release will have to offer.

As always thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and Cynamite.de for most of our comparison screens. Mr Deap for the others. A full gallery can be found here.

Tech Analysis: Vanquish Update (PS3 vs 360)

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Tech Analysis: Sonic Adventure (PS3 & 360)

I have many fond memories of the original Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast, so much so that I thought I’d invest in a copy of the recent PSN and XBL HD re-release of this Sega classic. Mainly for fun at first. Although that fun quickly turned into investigating just how well this HD revision holds up for the latest IQGamer Tech Analysis.

On first impressions it looks like Sega has taken the liberty of porting and sprucing up the original DC version of the game. However, on closer inspection it is clear that this re-release is a bizarre combination of the GCN version of the game (Sonic Adventure DX), minus the extra content, with the DC original’s title screen tagged onto the end of it.

For those of you who don’t know, Sonic Adventure DX featured a few graphical upgrades over the DC game, including specular highlighting on Sonic and the other main characters, reworked texturing, and a boost in overall framerate. And this is exactly what we get here, but with some additional tweaks and changes. Unfortunately, the DX version also features far more in the way of potentially game-breaking collision glitches, and sloppy control issues, neither of which felt quite as bad in the standard DC game.


The first thing you’ll notice, is that Sonic Adventure comes in a bordered 4:3 aspect ratio, with thick stripy bars on each side of the screen, and thin ones at the top and bottom. While the overall output resolution of the framebuffer is in fact 720p (1280x720) the gameplay segment itself is presented in 920x690, being 1:1 mapped to ensure that the image isn’t being cut off.

Interestingly, the final output looks somewhat blurrier than what a 690p image would look like when occupying its space in a native 720p framebuffer. Instead we can see that the game is actually rendering in 480p, and then being upscaled to 690p to form the final displayed frame. It’s not rendering in bordered HD that’s for sure.

The difference between what the game looks like when running in native 720p can be found below. The top screen shows the PC version running in true HD resolution, while the bottom shows the PSN and XBLA version upscaled to 690p.


PC


PS3 & 360

Without doubt this has to be one of the most disappointing aspects of the port, rendering in SD, and is an indication of just how much of a rush job to market it initially appears to be. When you consider that both the 360 and PS3 could easily handle the PC version of Sonic Adventure DX running in 720p, and at 60fps, then it is a mildly bitter pill to swallow, and a worrying sign for future DC conversions.

Saying that the upscaling method itself is very good - better than we've seen on some full price titles - and although this PSN and XBLA re-release doesn’t use any form of anti-aliasing, the game looks reasonably smooth, being free of most harsh jagged lines and polygon edges.

So, with no AA being present the smooth look can instead be attributed to the game’s poor use of bilinear texture filtering, and blurred nature due to the framebuffer being upscaled, both of which affect final image quality heavily. In still screens the lack of AA is more easily noticeable, though that doesn’t always appear to be the case in motion.

Thankfully, resolution isn’t everything, and most of the enhanced visual effects introduced in the GCN version of the game have been included here; additional specular highlighting, greater use of defuse mapping, and texturing changes are all brought to the table.


PC


DC

Above you can see the changes between the DC and PC versions of the game. These also apply to the PSN and XBLA releases too, and give you an idea of the differences between SA DX and vanilla SA.

However, both the PSN and XBLA builds of the game also feature improved shadowing on the characters as well. This can be seen on Sonic’s mouth and belly in the screenshot below, and looks pretty odd in motion, seeming a little overblown and unnatural.


Unusually, this version of Sonic Adventure lacks the inclusion of the reflective water found in the GCN build, but still features the same updated texturing. Oddly, this is also apparent in the PC game, a telltale sign that highlights which code was used for the PS3 and 360 ports.

Outside of these slight differences, nothing else appears to have changed. The art assets used are definitely the updated GCN ones, and in some cases look a tad blurrier, or less detailed than some of the ones used in the original DC game. The sheen on Sonic in particular is unnecessary, and some of the texturing now looks murky and undefined. However, many textures actually benefit from being replaced with higher-res versions, and look much better than the ones used in the original DC game. Though these improvements are largely under-represented due to the upscaled nature of the final image distorting things somewhat.


One area in which the PS3 and 360 versions of Sonic Adventure have seen the biggest gains, is with regards to performance. It’s nice to finally see a version of the game running largely as originally intended with only a few dips in fluidity intruding on the action.

Sonic Adventure runs at a near constant 60fps for 99.9 percent of the time, and the difference is instantly noticeable. I only encountered the odd drop down to 30fps, which lasted only for a brief second or so, maybe less. Apparently, in the 360 version these little dips happen slightly more frequently. However, I can’t confirm this for sure as I only own the full PS3 game, and the 360 demo, but not the full retail release.

For those of you who don’t know, early demos and pre-release builds of SA on the Dreamcast ran at 60fps with frequent drops in framerate, often down to 30fps. However, the final game runs at 30fps, with heavy bouts of slowdown to 20fps in the most detailed areas. Many parts of the Lost World stage saw the game holding a near constant 20fps, before narrowly getting back up to the 30 mark.

By contrast the GCN DX port managed to hit 60fps pretty much all the way through the entire game, with regular and sometimes random drops to 30, sometimes even 20fps, regardless of whether or not detail levels were significantly higher. In particular, the game often juddered between fluctuating framerates, sometimes hitting the target 60fps for extended periods of time, sometimes not.

Going back to the PS3 and 360 ports, and rather bizarrely, SA’s cut-scenes completely side step the upgrade to 60fps altogether, and are delivered with a fifty percent cut in smoothness compared to the standard during gameplay. The in-engine cinematics are all locked at 30fps, with no real reasoning as to why this was done. It’s not as if these parts of the game would prove more difficult to optimise, since the rendering load does not change at the drop of a hat like in gameplay (it can be controlled and is utterly predictable), then if anything, guaranteed performance at 60fps should be easier to obtain.

Like with the upscaled nature of the game’s framebuffer resolution, it appears that the developers have simply been rather lazy, performing optimisations on the most obvious parts of the game, whilst leaving others almost completely untouched. What is stranger still, is that the addition of improveved shadowing can be seen in both the cut-scenes and the gameplay, meaning that some tweaks were in fact made to both the engine, and entire game as a whole.

As expected, SA is fully v-synced on both platforms and never so much as tears a single frame. Of course this was the case on both the DC and GCN, but is an increasing rarity with titles this generation. Either way it’s nice to see a title not only hitting its target framerate but also doing that without tearing frames. Although, for an even year-old game running on a current gen platform, in 640x480 no less, you should expect nothing less, especially in lieu of any major (or barely even minor) graphical upgrades.


All things considered, whilst the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Sonic Adventure aren’t exactly great ports overall, they are redeemable in some respects, and the upgrade to 60fps is both pleasing on the eye and beneficial to the controls. Sonic himself is far more responsive, and the flow of the action is better represented than ever before.

However, the conversion also reeks of laziness through and through. The lack of any kind of widescreen support, or even the option to change the colour of the border surrounding the gameplay is unacceptable in this day and age. And the absence of a true 720p HD presentation is baffling to say the least.

Outside of that, the use of the DX code means that there are more gameplay glitches than in the Dreamcast original, with characters getting stuck in scenery, and odd collision detection errors being quite commonplace - things that arguably should have been sorted out given the high-profile nature of the release.

In conclusion then, the PS3 and 360 release of Sonic Adventure is still perhaps one of the best versions of the game we’ve seen so far, even if it doesn’t quite play as well as the DC original. Seeing, and ‘feeling’ it running in 60fps makes it well worth a look despite the obvious criticisms. Although, at the same time one can’t help but feel somewhat cheated considering both consoles could quite easily handle a full 1080p60 port without breaking sweat.

Thanks to sonicretro.org for the additional screens used in this feature.

Tech Analysis: Enslaved Demo (360 vs PS3)

When most people talk about the PS3’s unique architecture and the games which really show off the machine’s graphical prowess, both Uncharted 1&2 often crop up, as do Killzone 2 and God Of War 3. However, many seem to have forgotten about Heavenly Sword. Because during a time when HDR lighting and anti-aliasing were thought near impossible to do on the PS3’s NVIDIA 7800 derivative GPU in combination, Ninja Theory’s cinematic action game was doing just that.

At the time using a custom HDR format known as LogLuv (NAO32) allowed the developers to include full range HDR lighting whilst also adding proper 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing support into the mix. Combined with highly detailed texturing, advanced facial animation and complex character modelling, Heavenly Sword still holds up well today, and is the culmination of a collaboration between NT and other Sony studios in sharing technology to improve PS3 development.

Enslaved shares similar traits to that title. The game takes on a deeply filmic tone, cinematic in its execution, while the gameplay features slightly delayed response times with regards to the controls, and canned animations to keep the feel of an interactive move at the forefront of the experience. This is all backed up by superb voice work by Andy Serkis (who also did Heavenly Sword) and a solid script from Alex Garland, writer of the Beach and 28 Days Later.

However, there are a few differences between Enslaved and Heavenly Sword. The former was simply a PS3 exclusive, designed to get the most out of Sony’s machine in order to have a strong third-party offering for the format. Enslaved however, is a multiplatform release appearing on both PS3 and 360.

With this change of direction comes a change in game engine. Rather than to try and port over the tech powering their last effort, Ninja Theory has opted to use the Unreal Engine 3 for Enslaved. A common choice amongst third-party developers, it usually tends to favour the 360 as its lead platform with the PS3 often on the receiving end of some less than stellar conversions. Lower framerates, an abundance of screen tearing, and lower rendering resolutions are normal issues the PS3 faces with games using the engine.

That said, UE3 also provides a powerful, more familiar development environment in which to work on. And for Enslaved that is exactly why Ninja Theory decided to choose the engine over and above porting across their custom approach powering Heavenly Sword. But unlike other most other titles that use it, Enslaved manages to scrub up incredibly well on both platforms, almost hitting parity on the PS3. Apart from having one of two lower res / scaled back effects, and lower overall performance, both versions aren’t far off from being identical.


Most of the time with titles using UE3, it is common to find a discrepancy between the framebuffer resolution on one platform and on another. However, you’ll be pleased to know that Enslaved renders in 720p (1280x720) on both 360 and the PS3, with the game appearing identical in this regard.

Unlike Singularity, and both Gears Of War 1&2 on the 360, neither version of Enslaved features the standard selective 2xMSAA anti-aliasing solution used in most UE3 titles. Instead both versions lack AA altogether, and maintain similar levels of sharpness to each other.

Although, this isn’t quite as bad as it first sounds, seeing as the selective AA favoured by the engine usually has very little impact in real world terms. In still screenshots there is a noticeable, but slight improvement in overall image quality. However, this is simply restricted to either static objects, or the whole scene if nothing is moving. So in effect, most of the time you get practically no AA coverage anyway, thus making its inclusion of little worth when you consider the marginal gains on offer.

That said, even with a lack of AA Enslaved is hardly a jagged mess, and most of the harsher polygon edges are smoothened out by the game use of a stylish post process motion blur effect, and a little bloom lighting, which in effect negates the need for the jaggies reduction provided by 2xMSAA.


Although the inclusion of motion blur in Enslaved is mainly there for cinematic purposes. It also makes the whole experience take on a more cinematic tone, reproducing the camera blur present in fast action sequences found in movies.

A side effect of the blur is that it gives an impression of making the game seem smoother than it actually is. Usually this is done to make a 30fps experience flow slightly more like one that is perhaps running at 45fps, but obviously without truly achieving this. It’s a nice but subtle illusion, and in Enslaved it helps to briefly hide some of the game’s smaller drops in framerate. Though not the heavier ones, in which case there is nothing it can do.

As mentioned earlier the use of motion blur also has the effect of smoothening out jagged lines caused by the game’s lack of AA. The 360 version benefits the most, looking slightly smoother than the PS3 game. Albeit subtly so.

The reason for this, is that the use of the motion blur has been paired back on the PS3 build. It is clearly stronger on the 360 game, helping to deliver a slightly cleaner and more filmic look to the proceedings. Although, the difference is far less noticeable in motion than it is in the still screens featured on this page.

You may also notice that sometimes the PS3 version is missing blur entirely. This only tends to happen when use of the effect is so subtle that the engine doesn’t even activate it on the PS3, where it is cut down anyway. The result is that some scenes benefit from it, while others don’t.



Another area in which the 360 sees a handful of subtle graphical improvements, is with regards to the resolution of certain visual effects. Things like smoke, electricity, and certain lighting and particle effects are rendered in a lower resolution on the PS3. The two screenshots above show just how close both versions are; some effects like the electric power staff have harsher edges on the PS3 and appear slightly more aliased in motion, whilst the light coming through the ship on the right hand-side appears slightly softer owing to both seeing a reduction in resolution.

However, the differences are very subtle and hard to spot when playing the game, if not occasionally impossible. They certainly don’t take anything away from the PS3 build at all, instead showing that slight compromises don’t always lead to detrimental impact on overall graphical quality.


In terms of lighting and shadowing both are virtually identical as well. The 360 build gets a slight increase in bloom lighting, making hard polygon edges look smoother – much like the use of motion blur, the effect helps in reducing overall scene aliasing - whereas PS3 owners get a reduced version of the same thing featuring less image smoothing properties.


The shadowing model is reasonably accomplished, though somewhat basic compared to the likes of Uncharted 2, or even Bioshock 2 - that’s to say it has an effect of making parts of the game look very flat at times. In particular, with half of the objects in daylight scenes being covered by shadows, there is little depth to be had in these darkened parts of the environment. Instead, the only time in which the game really delivers a direct, noticeable sense of depth is with high contrasting light and dark areas.


Changing the intensity of the different light sources found in the game, along with expanding the range of colour provided by them would go a along way in circumventing this. As it stands the shadowing lacks a decent amount of tonal variations, and differing light values to do this. Neither PS3 nor 360 benefit from featuring any improvements or downgrades in this area, though the PS3’s shadowing looks slightly different from the way it is implemented on the 360, but not necessarily looking worse because of it.


Outside of the lighting and effects differences, for the most part, Enslaved actually looks identical across both platforms – a stark contrast to say, Bioshock 2, which had severe cuts made to its alpha buffer (effects) resolution, and an intrusive blur filter placed over the entire screen. Much like Singularity, the developers have done a rather good job in achieving parity on this front.

Ninja Theory have managed to get both texture detail and filtering looking mostly like for like across both versions, with the PS3 build in particular not suffering from lower res texturing than the 360 game, or gaining the usual bump in anisotropic filtering found in most titles running on the platform. It is definitely one of the better examples of multiplatform UE3 engine development, in which most changes don’t adversely affect either version in any significant way.

The same cannot be said in terms of overall performance though, in which we see the 360 build carving out a lead over the PS3 game. However, this is mostly apparent when playing each version one after the other, and not so much so when played on their own in a stand-alone fashion.


With Enslaved, the developers are clearly aiming to maintain a consistent 30fps throughout. And like with most titles using the unreal engine, the game regularly toggles between dropping framerate and losing v-sync in order to achieve that target. In this regard the 360 build fares better than the PS3 one. As we’ve seen before with Singularity, the UE3 engine appears to be more suited to Micrososft’s platform with less in the way of constant framerate drops happening, and definitely a lot less screen tearing.

The 360 version of Enslaved seems to take the most balanced approach between strictly maintaining v-sync whilst losing framerate, and dropping it ever so briefly in order to preserve it. Effectively this means that the overall amount of screen tearing taking place is regularly kept in check, with just a few small occurrences relatively subtle in their appearance.

By contrast the PS3 game tears more often, and when it occurs it is far more noticeable as a whole. Tearing isn’t just restricted to the top of the screen for short periods, but can be seen across the entire screen in parts. However, this only seems to happen in areas in which the engine becomes put under stress. The more stuff on screen, the more tearing that occurs, along with a larger drop in framerate. We're talking down to 24 - 20fps at times, though usually for only a few seconds at once. Most of the time the tearing is far more subtle in nature, and the PS3 version very often hits 30fps, with just smaller drops overall, before struggling in heavy load scenarios.

The 360 game also goes through a few heavy drops in framerate (mostly in cut-scenes), although it is feels more distinctly controlled, and doesn’t have the tendency to constantly tear frames when this happens. In which case we can see that the PS3 game largely isn’t v-synced at all, whereas the 360 game is, and often maintains it successfully, tearing less frames and keeping up its framerate.

However, the lack of v-sync on the PS3 version also leads to it having small additional spikes in performance over the 360 game. Some segments actually see it hit the target 30fps when the 360 build is lagging behind slightly. Though this certainly isn’t commonplace, and isn’t really a substitute for more even levels of performance.

Overall, it is clear that the 360 version performs better than the PS3 one, holding its framerate more solidly and tearing less frames. The use of v-sync can lead to heavy drops in performance, with frames being dropped significantly in parts – mainly the cut-scenes. But by and large it is manages to hit the target 30fps far more consistently than the PS3 game without suffering near constant screen tearing in places. The PS3 build may offer the occasional, slight performance advantage, but loses it with its lack of v-sync and generally more erratic framerate.

Saying that, much of the time the two can look virtually identical even when performance isn’t as good on the PS3 – especially when not going head-to-head against each other.


To be fair, despite issues with performance both versions of Enslaved are almost like for like. Other than a few lower resolution effects, and a downgrade in the usage of motion blur, most of the game looks identical across the board – that is to say that it can look lovely at times, both technically and stylistically, regardless of how it performs during gameplay.

Obviously, the same trends regarding the performance of the UE3 engine on PS3 remain; more unstable framerates and an increased amount of screen tear seem to be issues most developers haven’t been able to get around just yet. Though the gap does seem to be closing – we’re no longer looking at sub-HD UE3 PS3 ports anymore. Not for the most part anyway.

Granted, people who own both platforms should perhaps pick up the 360 version as it performs noticeably better across the board, though not in every instance. At the same time, the actual graphical differences outside of performance are so minor (motion blur aside) that there isn’t all that much in it. In fact you’d be hard-pressed to notice, and that certainly counts for something.

In conclusion Enslaved is better all-round on the 360, but is generally solid across both platforms, with pretty much no major differences outside of performance that you are likely to notice during gameplay. The use of high latency control also gives the whole game a somewhat laggy feel to it, and the fairly slow, Uncharted-like gameplay means that issues with framerate don’t tend to spoil things as much as they would do in fast-paced action titles that require far quicker reflexes.

Thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to videogameszone.de for the screenshots. The full gallery of uncompressed framebuffer grabs can be found here. I suggest that you check them out.