Tech Analysis: Gran Turismo 5

As a series that really excelled on Sony’s high bandwidth enabled PS2, Polyphony Digital have had to make some difficult choices in getting Gran Turismo 5 to work well with the RAM and bandwidth constraints of the PS3. Not compared to the PS2 as such, but against the EDRAM enabled set up of the Xbox 360 and the benefits it brings. Compromises can be seen in a variety of places, from the way shadowing is handled across the board, to actual particle effects resolution and even performance have all been part of a precise balancing act. But all that said, for the most part PD have made exactly the right choices for the game.

At times GT5 looks utterly amazing, truly gripping you in a way many other driving games rarely do. Although, at others, it looks decidedly a little rough – a telltale sign that the stunning technical achievement contained within didn’t come without a price. However, as a whole the game’s visual composition rarely falters to any degree in taking you out of the experience. Instead, it merely allows you to see just how massive an achievement GT5 really is.

Certain shortcomings aside, the game is a fantastic blend of artistic beauty and technical ambition. And although it is also one that doesn’t always manage to accomplish every goal flawlessly, it does more than enough convincingly in order to make it worthy of being called the ‘next-generation’ Gran Turismo.

Today we’ll be taking a huge in-depth look at the game as a whole, seeing how the whole graphics package holds up whilst also taking the time to delve deep into how, and why certain choices were made. We’ll be looking at both 720p and 1080p, along with the vast range of tech powering the game. We don’t have like for like screens for all our findings – and 1080p shots are unfortunately absent – but even then, just in 720p, there is much to discuss.

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


Starting off as ever with the rendering resolution, and we can se that with Gran Turismo 5 Polyphony Digital are indeed aiming high. Higher you could say than any other driving game to date. Here we have a title that targets, and manages to frequently achieve 720p60, 1080p60, and even 3D, which I might add is no mean feat given the high levels of bandwidth and processing power this requires. And when you consider how limited RSX can be in some areas, you begin to realise just how much of an undertaking the developers were embarking on.

For 720p GT5 renders in 1280x720 with 4x MSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing), and in 1080p we have a horizontally upscaled 1280x1080 framebuffer with 2X QAA and use of 2X temporal AA (TAA).

Right off the bat, I can see that both approaches initially yield similar results in sharpness and overall texture detail. On first impressions GT5’s 1080p mode looks stunning. It appears slightly sharper on my HDTV than 720p despite the set’s top-end scaling capabilities. However, delve a little closer and things aren’t all they first appear to be.

Now before I compare the two, let’s go into 720p for a moment. The use of 4xMSAA is a pretty substantial inclusion to say the least. Here we are provided with some incredibly effective edge smoothing, with only the obvious sub-pixel and shader aliasing issues that stand out. But even they, from a regular viewing distance, don’t seem to be as pronounced compared to other games. Case in point: while fences, the steel barriers at the sides of the track, and thin/small pieces of geometry in the distance, and to a lesser extent up close, still shimmer and suffer from a few jaggies, this is hardly noticeable on all the game’s courses.

The older tracks – ported and mildly upgraded from GT4 – feature less in the way of details made up of small geometry, meaning generally less in the way of noticeable instances of sub-pixel issues. On the other hand, the more finely detail tracks created specifically for GT5 – or the ones from GT4 that have been given a full GT5 standard upgrade – have more in the way of jaggies appearing in the distance.

But even then, the use of 4xMSAA is largely successful in dealing with these issues in a general sense. That is, they take care of the most noticeable flaws leaving the rest to only mildly impact on what you are seeing.


Moving on to 1080p, and we can see a similar level of AA performance, courtesy of the combined use of QAA plus the temporal TAA solution. Usually an unwanted side effect of using QAA is the blurring of textures along with polygon edges, which often can noticeably reduced the level of detail available in any given scene. However, in the GT5 this doesn’t appear to be the case. Instead, texture detail comes off as being only a little bit blurrier compared to when the game is running in 720p.

The reason behind this boils down to the way the QAA algorithm has been specifically implemented across the 1080p framebuffer. Usually the QAA sampling pattern works across all pixels, smoothing over both high and low contrast areas, rather than looking for an edge. Here in GT5, with the greater pixel to texel ratio, the sampling pattern only affects neighbouring pixels, thus leading to less texture blurring as a result.

The comparative use of MSAA vs QAA also makes sense, as both 720 with 4xMSAA and 1080p with QAA have similar memory requirements with regards to the framebuffer. In fact, it is 720p that is slightly more memory heavy in GT5.

In terms of the TAA, this helps in mitigating some of the game’s sub-pixel shimmering issues, and looks to be present in 1080p only. You can turn off the use of temporal AA by changing the display option from ‘Normal’ to ‘Flicker Reduction’ to see the difference. ‘Flicker Reduction’ makes the overall image look slightly sharper, though introduces slightly more aliasing artefacts, whilst ‘Normal’ creates a smoother look, subtly improving image quality.

Another thing that is also apparent is that the use of TAA doesn’t blur the image when in motion. The technique used in GT5 doesn’t combine two separate frames together. There’s no unsightly frame blending, so no blur. Instead, the technique actually helps in reducing aliasing caused by alpha coverage, and parts of the game that uses A2C (alpha-to-coverage). This also means that it isn’t possible to capture it in frame-by-frame screen grabs.


Now, going back to our 720p vs 1080p observations. It is clear than the additional upscaling of the horizontal resolution and the implementation of QAA both impact the maximum level of sharpness present in the 1080p image. Whilst it still looks slightly sharper on a native 1080p display, the texture details don’t appears quite as clear and some of the polygon edges are not quite as clean. However, the trade off comes with a perceived level of better sharpness on the HDTV, as when looking at 720 vs 1080p FB grabs, the difference between the two is far more apparent – 720p appears to be clearly sharper.

The balance between having some kind of 1080p mode – even if the horizontal res is far short of that 1920 commonly quoted – with full use of AA, and a definitive 720p mode which maximises every drop of image quality, is an undeniably solid choice. Image quality seems to be well preserved across all modes – although we didn’t get to test out 3D – with less than the expected amount of aliasing being present. The fact that Polyphone have successfully implemented both high levels of AA whilst also managing to run at 1080p is particularly impressive.


Of course, in order to maintain such high levels of IQ, compromises in other areas have had to have been made. The huge level of transparencies on offer in GT5 is somewhat unusual considering how ill-suited the PS3 usually is for handling such a task without the end product coming through unscathed. Though, like with the concessions made in order to have a solid 1080p mode in the game, a similar thing can also be seen here too. What’s also important to remember, is that PD are aiming to reach a near constant 60fps at all times, and this does eat away into bandwidth and processing time available per frame.

GT5 uses two distinct methods for allowing the engine – and the bandwidth starved PS3 – to handle such copious amounts of alpha effects - that is to render all such elements at a much lower resolution to the rest of the scene, whilst using the half-res, interlaced style alpha-to-coverage (A2C) for the foliage.

As we’ve discussed before at IQGamer, the use of low res effects can often be detrimental to the overall image, with things such as smoke, particles and water, all impacting on the clarity of other objects in the rendering pipeline. This is also the case in GT5. However, the extent to which this happens is largely contained within specific circumstances, and not through the entire game en-mass in anyway that really distracts.

First up are particle effects themselves. These are all rendered in 1/16th of the screen resolution, along with having depth buffers rendered at the same resolution. Despite their extremely low res nature, there is very little in the way of alisaing or shimmering artefacts to be found around any of the game’s smoke effects. Like in both Killzone 2&3 the individual layers of 2D sprites which make up the effect have been blended together nicely, resulting in a smooth, natural transition between layers.



However, the downside of using lower res effects comes in when there are either multiple cars on screen at once (affected by lighting) – in which the effects look slightly rougher – or when there are weather/time of day changes, where we see some obvious artefacts.

Taking a look at the two screenshots above (grabbed from my phone cam) we can see how some of these artefacts manifest themselves. These shots clearly shows how the extremely poor looking, low resolution water particles create some pixelated and jittery shadows on the cars using the external view. Although these two captures are far from ideal, they do at least highlight that the low res nature of some of the effects in GT5 are far from pretty – they can often be rather unsightly.

Another issue also arises when the low res particles cover the actual cars themselves, which causes some further unwanted aliasing artefacts not always seen in all circumstances. Anomalies like this only happen when the low res effects react with the high resolution car models and specular maps when the sun is directly shining on them. It’s hard to spot when racing due to the angle required for this to happen, along with specific viewpoints on the cars themselves. In replays however, this, along with some of the other issues are far more noticeable.


Secondly, we have the issue of rendering more transparencies with regards to the game’s foliage. Trees and surrounding plants are all made up of subtle transparent elements which can take up a lot of memory bandwidth when using traditional alpha coverage. So instead, the developers have mitigated this somewhat by rendering all foliage in the game using the cheaper alpha-to-coverage technique. A2C works by rendering transparencies in a half-res, interlaced style manner, and the result is that all foliage in the game features a subtle screen door effect.

You can see this clearly above. Looking at the trees we can notice what appears to be a dithered look to things – the screen door effect, a common trait of A2C. Thankfully, at regular viewing distances (say 5 to 6 feet from a 32” screen) the effect isn’t noticeable at all. Instead, you can only see it when going slightly closer to the screen. And even then, it isn’t a big deal.


Looking at the games use of shadowing on the cars and certain environment details, and we can see similar cutbacks in quality. The low quality shadow filtering (it’s simple 2x2 PCF that has a very small impact in performance) creates pixelated and jittering artefacts on shadow edges, most noticeably around cars during replays, when driving in the cockpit view, and when lots of alpha effects are present.

These side-effects show up clearly in replays, though are not quite so obvious when actually driving around the track. Other instances of jittering, and flickering shadows can also been seen around trackside details, such as next to the bystanders and other objects which have small shadowing elements to them. Unlike with some of the game’s filtering issues, these can be seen at all times and are not just confined to the replays.


Whilst pointing out all these low resolution and poor quality effects might make it seem that GT5 has some noticeably serious issues, that simply isn’t the case at all. Instead, in motion, and while playing the game, most of these things don’t really impact on the overall graphical look of the game. Sure, the jittery shadows do constantly stand out. But the other stuff blends in surprisingly well with the rest of the game’s rendering make up.

Another thing to remember, is that Polyphony Digital are aiming for an absolutely smooth 60fps update while pushing full 720p framebuffers with 4xMSAA, and 1080p with combined 2xQAA plus 2xTAA, which clearly uses up a lot of the memory bandwidth and pixel fill-rate available. In that case, the choice to go with lower res buffers and what amounts to basically free shadow filtering was the right thing to do.

The most important element in the GT series, like with Call Of Duty, is with maintaining its super responsive, ultra fluid refresh. Having this nailed down is absolutely key to the experience.


Looking at performance across both 720p and 1080p, it is apparent that Polyphony Digital has done a rather admirable job in maintaining it throughout, sans a few issues with dropped frames and some screen tearing.

The comprehensive replay option found in the game allows us to look at performance in exactly like for like situations across both 720p and 1080p. Saved replays can be viewed from all in-game viewpoints, thus allowing us to compare footage without needing to re-create the same conditions on the same track. For those who don’t know, all replays in their default view are rendered in real-time at 30fps, whilst playable viewpoints are rendered at 60fps. Just like when racing.

For the most part, and rather impressively, Gran Turismo 5 does run at a near constant 60fps, with only a few dips in places when the engine comes under stress. At these points the game suffers from some short bouts of screen tearing along with few drops in framerate lasting a few seconds – sometimes at the same time.

This happens in both 720p and 1080p, and our initial impressions found that overall performance is far less stable for the later. However, when playing the game across a range of different tracks with varying car counts, we can see that factors other than raw resolution play a much greater part in impacting overall smoothness. Obviously, when running in 1080p on some tracks – Rome and other city courses specifically – the framerate is frequently more unstable compared to the same scenario running in 720p. But on others, it remains remarkably close, if not identical.

Another factor to consider is the number of cars on screen at once. Not necessarily the total number of cars in the race, but how many can become bunched up in a particular area when racing. This seems to be the root cause of most drops in performance - when the screen tears massively and the framerate gets cut down in half to 30fps. Quite often tearing is accompanied by dropped frames, thus resulting in a noticeable reduction in controller responsiveness and what looks like a juddering of the image on screen.

Thankfully, these dips in performance aren’t a domineering presence, and even in the densely detailed city tracks, so long as there isn’t a whole group of cars bunmched together, the frame holds steady for the most part. Tearing on the other hand usually comes with a screen stuttering effect regardless of whether or not frames are dropped. But even this isn’t a frequent occurrence.

What is impressive, is that PD have managed to get GT5 running at a mostly stable 60fps across both display modes whilst pushing around a large amount of alpha on screen, along with several highly complex, high poly car models. The use of a full 720p FB with MSAA, and 1080p with QAA plus TAA at 60fps is surely pushing the RSX and PS3’s pixel fill-rate through the roof. So, seeing such consistent levels of performance is a real testament to PD’s coding team and the engine they’ve managed to create in working within such tight constraints.


Moving away from performance and back to the make up of the visuals instead, we can see that GT5’s lighting and shadowing is made up firmly of both small real-time elements, along with plentiful use of pre-baked techniques. Like with GT’s 3&4 on the PS2, the bulk of GT5’s lighting and shadowing effects are pre-baked onto the surrounding environments through the use of shadow maps and light maps.

Whilst this does mean that there doesn’t seen to be a great deal of on-the-fly dynamic changes to the overall look of the game’s lighting conditions, the effect is mostly very convincing. The reflections on the cars for example, are as beautifully implemented as they are elegantly done, whilst the environmental lighting and shadowing model show how good art design can often take the place of having the most advanced technical solution. They do a good job of blending the two together when concentrating on driving around the track, and not when deliberately picking out technical details.

However, GT5 also features at least one noticeable light source which changes the amount of intensity and direction of the lighting on the cars whilst driving along the track. This appears to be implemented in a very similar way to the PS2 GT games, in the sense that it doesn’t effect the lighting or shadow intensity on all parts of the environment – it doesn’t seem to change the composition of the pre-baked parts of the engine, only the cars depending on their direction from the light source.

On the other hand, some racks feature day to night time changes, and in these parts of the game the impact of GT5’s lighting engine is felt far more strongly. Inclusion of extremely intense bloom lighting when driving out of certain tunnels into the sunlight also delivers a solid faking of proper HDR effects.

This use of what actually looks like HDR lighting (the bloom) is in fact a more limited, compressed version of the technique. Quite which one, I’m not sure. But certainly we’re not looking at full FP16 goodness here. Instead something approaching a wider range of bloom that complements the baked nature of a large amount of the lighting and shadowing on show.

On the whole, whilst looking a little static, PD’s choice of lighting schemes was clearly the right one for the game. The use of baked and subtler real-time elements works very well, while this also allowing for the cars to shine. The way they are lit and shaded in general is incredibly impressive, and the environment reflections play a strong part in delivering the feeling of realism that is essential to the series.


The same can also be said about the graphical make of the environments as well. Most are made up of a simple combination of multi-textured, shaded and lit geometry, with some basic use of shader effects (specular, diffuse etc) and some transparent alpha coverage and A2C. The lack of large amounts of multi-layered transparent polygons in making up the scenery (most of the foliage for example are simple 2D sprites) can occasionally break the realistic illusion PD are going for, with some parts of the track appearing rather flat and quite dated.

However, on others such as, and in particular Monza, the trackside detail can be pretty convincing despite not using a full 3D solution. Photo realistic texturing, and the baked lighting also makes a large difference. The City tracks of course benefit from having loads of fairly low poly, but beautifully textured and filtered buildings.

Obviously, there is a noticeable difference between legacy courses and the ones created specifically for GT5. In particular, we can see the likes of Deep Forest using a large amount of old untouched textures mixed in with new or reworked objects. The old stuff looks pretty ropey at times, although parts of it still appear to be nicely blended with the rest of the scenery. The reduced amount of sub-pixel and shader aliasing in these tracks do go some way to making up for that, even if more work could have been done.

On the other hand, the courses made specifically for GT5 looks far, far more impressive. We still see the inclusion of some low res texturing and flat 2D imagery used in quite prominent places, although the overall composition is noticeably superior. Photo-realism is well preserved, and the overall look is a little more natural in its appearance.

Ultimately, more of the engine’s budget (processing power and rendering time) could have been spent on the environments, but at the expense of having as exquisitely detailed car models. Some of the stuff like the foliage itself would have required heavy use of multiple layers of transparent geometry – something which greatly eats into the RSX’s available bandwidth, which would impact strongly on other parts of the game. Instead, PD’s focus has been on the cars; creating the most realistic looking vehicles seen in any game so far, whilst also delivering a fair compromise with the environments where they race.

The balance between having more detailed scenery and less impressive car renderings was always going to be the subject of debate. However, for GT5 this was another required compromise in seeing the team’s vision come to life. The cars were always the star of the show when it comes to GT, and quite rightly that’s where a lot of resources have gone.


Speaking of the cars themselves, and GT5 has just over a thousand of them. 200 of these are high-end premium models designed and modelled specifically for this game, whilst the other 800 or so have been ported directly from GT4, known as standard vehicles.

The premium models have been lavished with a degree of detail and a level of care and attention rarely seen in other comparable racing titles. The bodywork has finite amounts of detail in general, and the shader effects used to create their beautifully shiny exteriors are simply sublime. Seeing these racing around the track with environmental reflections is one thing, but in photo mode their true level of precision becomes apparent.

Sadly, the same cannot be said when talking about the ‘standard’ model variety. Seeing as these have simply been ported over from GT4 with nothing else been done to them, other than being rendered in HD, they look decidedly poor in comparison. Quality seems to vary between cars though, with some looking pretty good (even when viewed in replays) while others are pretty awful in general. You can clearly see this in the shot of a standard car below.


Other than what looks like better specular highlighting across the cars, nothing else has been done to improve their appearance at all. Here we see plenty of low resolution textures and no bump mapping of any kind. Even the environmental reflections are of a simpler standard. There’s no damage modelling either. While it might be a bit of a stretch to see full blown normal mapped exteriors helping to make up for the deficit in geometry, some reworked textures would have been nice in lessening the overall gap between the two sets of cars.

Thankfully, most of these differences can only be seen when viewing the standard vehicles in replays, and not so much to when racing. Driving while using the chase-cam external view, the lower quality nature of the ‘standard’ cars is barely noticeable. The difference tends to stand out the most when up next to premium models, or in a scene whereby the game’s lighting has a greater effect on the looks of the cars.

However, as these standard cars are only available via the used car shop, chances are you’ll rarely be using one as anything other than a starting vehicle. With a varied selection of 200 premium cars from which to choose from, it’s unlikely that you’ll want to go back given the range available.


Still, one can’t help to wonder why PD thought that it would be a good idea to have such a discrepancy in car quality marking down the overall focus on perfection and visual beauty seen throughout the game. 200 highly detailed cars is more than enough given that most players will only use a handful of these on offer. Usually, what you’ll find in a racing game is that the quality of the cars on offer is what counts, and not the sheer number available as a whole.

Another option – and one that is entirely plausible, if not almost guranteed to be the case for GT6 - is to re-use the 200 premium models again for the next instalment of the series. Maybe even if that means next-gen. PD already have a large variety of obscenely detailed cars which look beautiful in 1080p – and we’re not likely to seeing an increase in resolution beyond that for some time – so it certainly makes sense to take advantage of this fact. Perhaps they could spend more time, and indeed shader power, on getting the environments and trackside scenery up to the same level.


Lastly, one area we don’t often cover in our analyses, is the impact of loading and install time on the overall play experience. But in GT5, seeing as the amount of loading present definitely intrudes on the whole, it definitely had to be mentioned.

GT5 comes with an optional 6.5GB install function. And while you don’t need to take advantage of this fact, I strongly suggest that you do. Installing the game on the PS3’s HDD not only cuts down load times significantly, but also allows for shorter, permanent installs to take place instead of longer temporary ones when playing without.

Without performing the core 6.5GB install, the game will need to both load and install data for a large variety of components. The game’s menu screens need to be installed, as does car preview information (cached off the hard drive) and the courses themselves… every time you access them. This brings the experience down to painfully slow levels, in which it takes easily over a minute to load up a track, let alone enter a mode, pick a car etc, on top of that. The fact that these installs are only temporary means that while you save on HDD space, loading times are permanently high.

Installing the game then, is the only realistic option. This can take between 35 and 50 minutes, depending on which model PS3 you have (HDD cache amongst other things apparently affect this), but does significantly reduce the overall time it takes for parts of the game to load.

Like before, GT5 needs to install data for various elements independently from the main install, although it only needs to do this once. And this takes only a mere two or three seconds, without impacting on general loading times. But unlike before, loading times are dramatically cut down: we’re looking at around half the time to loading in the courses, and the cars are now quickly streamed off the HDD when going to view them.

Arguably, PD’s system for managing game data on the PS3 is somewhat disappointing. Even after the main install we still see the occasional install messages pop up from time to time while accessing the same course we’ve already been on several times before. Plus, the menu screens still take quite a noticeable amount of time to load up. Quite why PD didn’t decide to have these completely installed on the hard drive is beyond me. It would certainly give the whole experience a more natural flow, instead of feeling a little disjointed.

Either way, the bulk 6.5GB install does indeed work well. Although, it has to be said that it doesn’t completely mitigate the constant loading issues still present in the game. But to be fair, without changing the make up of the game, the menus, and how data is handled as a whole, little else realistically could have been done. A full game install would indeed sort this. But that is hardly a feasible option, considering the vast nature of the content available and the size it would take up.


In conclusion, after over five longs years of waiting and an estimated $60 million plus in terms of development costs, Gran Turismo 5 is a great example of technical mastery and artistic vision blended beautifully together. Although, that is not to say there aren’t any problems – the poor quality shadowing and low res effects spoil things somewhat, while the baked nature of the lighting doesn’t impress as much as competing titles dynamic solutions. However, these tradeoffs can’t, and indeed don’t take away from the incredible feat the team at Polyphony Digital have performed with regards to achieving 720p and 1080p performance at 60fps, with good use of anti-aliasing to boot.

Given the massive bandwidth issues with then PS3 architecture as a whole, the range of compromises seen throughout simply help to highlight the mammoth feat that has been performed within. The individual components of the rendering engine as a whole may well seem lacking, or slightly behind the times. However, in combination, when put together to form the final product, the final image, they work exceptionally well, whilst also delivering a game that at times is simply gorgeous to look at.

Of course, the cars themselves are virtually flawless. Most of our qualms come to down to the way the environments are rendered, how the effects are handled etc. But nothing impacts on the visual splendour of the work done by PD on the premium vehicle modelling. The sheen on the near-perfect, better looking than real life exteriors, to the intricately detailed stylings of the bodywork - everything has been delivered with a finesse and polish rarely seen outside of high-end CG, let alone in any other game to date.

Visually, the GT series has always handled specific elements in a certain way, and GT5 is no exception to this rule. The developers at PD have carved a fine line between technical compromise and artistic creativity, perhaps eschewing purely advanced rendering techniques for something a little simpler. But here, as before… it works. Sometimes exceptionally well, sometimes not. Either way, it seems like the right choices were made at the right time for this particular title.


Outside of graphical concerns and achievements Gran Turismo 5 delivers a truly in-depth, accomplished experience on and off the track. The realistic, albeit stylised handling feels incredibly good, with plenty of customisation available from tyre changes to suspension tweaks, whilst the huge range of events and different things on offer provide plenty to see and do. The special events are great for earning money, and the B-Spec mode provides an ample way out for those looking for looking to cut down the grind.

Also, the levelling system and the unlocks it provides keeps drip-feeding you new features and things to try out, thus keeping things interesting for anyone looking for more stuff to do. And there are lots: from Go-Karting to Nascar, to Rallying and Drift Challenges, there’s plenty on offer for everyone.

The only downsides come in the form of GT’s own style of convoluted menu system, and RPG-like grind required in order to gain entry to specific events (without using B-Spec mode). In which case, more could have been done to bring this somewhat dated system up to scratch for 2010, because it feels positively archaic – like it belongs as much in a PS2 instalment of the series more than it does here. The long loading times as well, often break up the action in a way that makes the game feel disjointed.

Otherwise, GT5 is a superb, expertly crafted game, one that would perhaps have benefited from being developed outside of its own protective bubble and into the wider world instead. That is to say, it is most certainly well worth picking up, representing another true generational leap for the series… even if it doesn’t quite make it through completely unscathed.

Many thanks go out to both AlStrong and Quaz51 for their pixel counting skills and aaditional insight into TAA. Plus Cynamite.de, Gamekult, and Taxi Gamer for the screens.

Tech Analysis: Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit (PS3 vs 360)

After taking a fairly in-depth technical look at the demo for Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, we came away decidedly impressed with the superb quality of the work on offer. The use of a highly optimised multi-platform engine, whereby through parralelisation of code - in the form of scalable modules which can run on multiple cores/SPU’s – not only yielded solid results across both platforms. But also confirmed that Criterion’s approach to development was indeed the right one.

In terms of platform parity, the demo was for all accounts, identical on both platforms, with next to nothing in separating them. Texture detail, filtering, lighting, and almost every graphical effect had been careful replicated on both the PS3 and the 360, whilst performance was surprisingly rock solid - 30fps being upheld near constantly, with no screen tearing taking place.

The most interesting parts of our analysis focused us on the game’s use of anti-aliasing - what looked like an additional technique had been included over and above the standard 2xMSAA solution, and the use of an incredibly impressive dynamic lighting system. Both of which were points we wanted to investigate further outside of the night time track we had only access to in the demo. And these are exactly the things we’ll be taking another look at here today, along with another look at performance in the company of the final game.


First of all, just a quick recap. NFS:HP renders in 720p on both platforms with edge smoothing being provided by use of 2xMSAA. Extra smoothing is also present from a currently unknown, custom form of AA, which is used to help reduce sub-pixel aliasing issues on thin strips of geometry and objects that appear far off into the distance.

In the demo we reported on the noticeable improvement in overall image quality present from the additional implementation of custom AA, although at the same time where left with only half the picture. For our demo analysis, we only had access to the night time portion of the game, which as regular readers of IQGamer should know, low contrast areas often provide a best case scenario for most anti-aliasing techniques (supersampling and MLAA aside). The real test of how well Criterion’s custom solution actually works, is in the higher contrast daytime sections of the final code.


As you can see in the screenshot above, like in the demo, power lines and small objects far off into the distance get a huge amount of edge smoothing not possible just by using 2xMSAA on its own. Edge shimmering is noticeably reduced as a result, and the scene has a more solid look to it.

Not all elements of the scene are covered however. Some objects, like the telegrapth poles and small fences at the side of the road, suffer from both high contrast aliasing and subpixel issues, where by the samples created by the MSAA are insufficient to deal with such things. These do result in some jagged and shimmering edges being present, sometimes unavoidably so. Although, overall sampling coverage, and indeed jaggies reduction is very good considering the look of the game.

Despite the high contrast nature of some of the daytime scenes, aliasing is indeed kept in check, with Criterion’s technique successfully aiding the 2xMSAA solution also apparent. As expected, jaggies aren’t completely eliminated - they can crop up frequently throughout the trackside scenery. But the overall result is more than satisfactory given the make up of the game engine – the lighting, huge draw distances etc.


Another thing that we were thoroughly impressed with in the demo, and that we wanted to check out in the finished game, in full daylight environments no less, was the title’s use of dynamic lighting. In NFS:HP the cars are lit and shaded in real time by the surrounding environment, with elements such as cloud coverage dramatically changing the lighting applied to the scene at any given time.

Image based lighting is used to do this, where the actual environment and lighting scheme are rendered first, before the cars are rendered afterwards in a separate pass. This allows the cars to be accurately lit and shaded at all times, changing constantly with regards to their position in the game world itself.

At night the range of different light sources in combination with cloud coverage gave way to an incredibly realistic look, with lighting that brought about a certain amount of naturalness to the overall look of the game. In the daytime we can see this effect being heightened even more. Various elements: such as the sun rising above hilltops as you come speeding around corners, and the constantly moving cloud dramatically impacts on lighting present in the scene, reacting instantly with the cars as they are being driven around the track.

With shadows constantly shifting, lighting is never the same across both versions at any given time. There is more range, and indeed scope on offer here too, making a noticeable difference. Although, the actual quality and implementation of the effect is the same on both PS3 and 360. This accounts for any lighting differences apparent in our comparison screens.


Interestingly, not every aspect of the game appears exactly like for like. In the demo we noticed that the specular maps on both the road and some environment surfaces seemed to be rendered in a slightly lower resolution on the PS3, and as we can see in the screenshot above, the same thing can indeed be found in the final game.

However, this oddity is only present under certain circumstances – the difference simply doesn’t exist when racing in full daylight conditions, nor does it appear above on the wall of the tunnel either (look to the left, it's the same on both). So maybe something else is interfering with it in some way. Either way, signs point to the reduced quality effect only being present when the car's headlights are directly shining on the road, in either dark parts of the track, or at night time.


In terms of performance, the final game, is as expected exactly like in the demo. NFS:HP runs at a rock solid 30fps (the game is framerate locked) at all times during gameplay on both formats, with the only slowdown occurring in takedown or car crash scenes, along with on some cinematics before and after the race. As these segments aren’t controllable by the player, the slowdown makes no real impact on the proceedings, other than visually, so there is no loss of controller responsiveness to be found during gameplay.

The use of v-sync is also fully apparent, with neither version exhibiting any screen tearing whatsoever. The high contrast nature of the daylight courses make tearing easier to see without having any equipment to measure it – that is to say that I saw none to be present at any point when playing the game.

So, performance is remarkably solid – a point we mentioned back when taking a look at the demo. But how does the game’s handling fair? Usually the lower the framerate, the greater the amount of latency has an affect on controller responsiveness, with any increase in lag being noticeable compared to games that run at 60fps. In the demo we sighted handling which felt slightly unresponsive, although actual controller feedback felt responsive.


As we first surmised, and experienced first hand in other games, the use of lower spec cars meant that fast turning or quick Burnout style drifting wasn’t really as easy as it should be. In fact, the handling model felt a little bit like Split Second – that is to say, that it felt a little unrefined. However, in the final game - with cars not a mile better than the ones given to us for use in the demo - we can see a marked improvement. The handling on the whole is far, far better, whilst maintaining that Burnout meets Split Second feel, without the compromise of feeling slightly laggy due to using those underpowered starting vehicles.

Of course, there’s no question that 60fps games, like Burnout Paradise, provide an ample improvement in controller responsiveness – lower latency means more instant feedback. Although, in this regard NFS:HP still feels incredibly responsive. More so it seems than many other 30fps racers, with the initial handling mechanic accounting for the difference.


Interestingly, it has been said that the PC version of the game can be made to run at 60fps with what looks like very little in the way of high-end hardware. Apparently, it is possible to acheive what I consider to be the benchmark framerate in which developers should strive for, with a simple mid-spec gaming rig. Unfortunately, my new PC isn’t ready yet, so I wasn’t able to test this out directly. But perhaps I might look into doing an update of sorts over the Christmas period if I have the time.

Either way, while it is obvious that NFS:HP would indeed benefit greatly from running at a higher framerate – sometimes the game is so fast that the 30fps update seems to lose its fluidity, even if it hasn’t actually changed – the experience is still a highly enjoyable one at that. Maybe the game isn’t quite as silky smooth as I would have liked – not at the super high speeds present. But of all the choices made, the compromise of having a rendering engine which draws massive vistas way into the distance, along impressive use of advanced dynamic lighting to boot, is a worthy one at that.


If its any consolation, the game’s use of motion blur often helps in making the game feel a tad smoother than it is. This is a common side effect of motion blur in general, in which the distorted nature of images in the scene can help to blend the separately rendered frames together, much like the way shutter speed affects the viewing of individual frames in film projection.

Given the insanely high speeds you are often driving at, the effect is a subtle one at best, felt more in the daytime races than at night. And sometimes, even it cannot make the game feel any smoother than it actually is. Thankfully, the constant 30fps update with no screen tearing keeps things nice and fluid. Although, that’s not to say a 60fps experience, with certain cut-backs made to the game’s advanced lighting system, wouldn’t be preferable.


In conclusion, the finished version of Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit is indeed as solid and technically accomplished as the demo - on both platforms no less, with only one slight difference doing absolutely nothing to tip the scales of balance in either way. Both versions come highly recommended, and although the lack of 60fps may come as a disappointment to ardent fans of Criterion’s past racers, that shouldn’t be enough to prevent you from screeching off that starting line in their company once again. Well… not if you want the best Need For Speed game in years that is.

Once again thanks go out to AlStrong for pixel counting and Cynamite.de for their screens. The full gallery of higher quality shots can be found here.

Tech Analysis: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (PS3 vs 360)

There has always been quite a considerable gap in between the PS3 and 360 versions of previous Assassin’s Creed titles. Whilst most of the core make-up of each game was in fact pretty much identical, sans occasional differences, both performance and image quality lagged behind on the PS3. So much so that Ubisoft themselves ublicly recognised this, with Level Design Content Director, Phillipe Bergeron, acknowledging that more could be done in a recent interview with IGN.

"At the end of ACII we realised that the PS3 was sort of an afterthought – or, not that it was an afterthought, but we hadn't fully debugged it until the very end, and we had a bunch of frame rate issues and quality issues. This time around we knew that, because we went through it once, so we decided to attack it from the beginning and I think the final product is much more on the level, and even on some parts, the frame rate is probably sometimes better on the PS3 than it is on 360."

The question is though. Did Ubisoft Montreal actually follow through, or are we left with another disappointing PS3 port, complete with noticeably worse performance and a smeary Vaseline-styled look? The answer in fact, may just surprise you. As although Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood shares much with its predecessors, it is certainly a more polished affair in which the PS3 version stands up remarkably well with its 360 counterpart. It is for the most part, bar some texture blurring and a contrast/gamma difference, identical.


360


PS3

As expected Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both formats, with 360 getting the standard issue 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) as usually seen in titles on the platform, and the PS3 once again receiving the alternative quincunx (QAA) solution.

As we’ve mentioned before in previous tech analyses, the very nature of how QAA works in smoothening jagged lines means that the entire image, including textures, gets blurred to some extend. Unlike with MSAA, QAA works on applying the smoothening algorithm to every pixel and not just specific edges.

Essentially edge-based pixels are still sampled in a similar way, however QAA uses a five-point sampling pattern which inconveniently works on all areas of the image regardless of whether an edge is present or not – pixels in both low and high contrast areas are equally affected, which is the main cause of textures becoming blurred as a result.

The choice of using QAA over traditional MSAA then, is rather strange to say the least, considering the technique comes with roughly the same processing and memory cost as 2xMSAA. But the advantage it seems, is with it being able to deliver ample edge smoothing closer to that of 4xMSA, though at the expense of overall scene clarity.

The most obvious reason for its use probably stems from an artistic decision rather than a purely technical one – there’s no reason why MSAA couldn’t have been implemented, so it’s likely that the developers actually wanted to have 4xMSAA type levels of edge smoothing on both platforms, but without any easy way to do so on 360 (you would have to use tiling). The PS3, naturally, has QAA as a standard form of anti-aliasing not included in the 360’s GPU feature-set (it’s an NVIDIA thing), so represents an obvious compromise.

However, compared to some games that use the technique, the QAA in ACB has less of an initial impact in overall image quality than you might expect. Especially seeing as the PS3 build’s 720p output remains fairly sharp and continuously crisp despite additional texture blurring.



Unfortunately, most of our comparison screens for ACB are rather compressed whilst suffering from obvious lack of proper gamma adjustment on the console end, which makes showing the clean appearance of the PS3 build and the extra sharpness of the 360 game rather difficult. As a result we’ve left all the screens untouched - free from additional compression induced labelling, whilst also bringing you two much higher quality PS3 screens in which to demonstrate out findings.

With the two shots above you can clearly see just how sharp the PS3 version really is, with the use of QAA providing a decent level of jaggies reduction without compromising the clarity of polygon edges. Some texture blurring is apparent, which is perhaps the biggest bugbear I have about the technique. But as you can see its affects aren’t especially displeasing - not in every instance - and as a result ACB still looks incredibly good on the PS3.


360


PS3

Despite all our images showcasing what looks like reduced quality texturing in the PS3 build ACB, you can see that the main reason for this is a combination of both the additional blur provided by the use of QAA and the drastic difference in gamma curves for both versions.

This gamma difference is half of what makes the PS3 game look less detailed on first impressions, with textures that could be misconstrued as being in a lower resolution to those not aware of how QAA imapcts on the final image. However, the actual assets used in the game are actually like-for-like, and you can see this when both versions closely scrutinised.

Instead, it is the initially higher contrast and washed out nature of the PS3 game, in combination with the QAA which helps in hiding texture details, and making the filtering come across as looking worse, which in fact, is actually identical (same levels of AF present on both). Calibrating both the brightness through the game’s own menu, and gamma on the HDTV itself practically solves the problem, with the PS3 version looking clean and sharp with more visible detail being present after this is done.


360


PS3


360


PS3

You can clearly see this above: the in-game brightness setting has been adjusted in order to provide a more uniform look across both consoles. HDTV settings haven’t been touched in these two phone captures, instead showing that a similar level of brightness can be obtain by simply changing an option in the game’s menu.

For the most part, like with Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit and indeed past Assassin’s Creed titles, both versions of Brotherhood look pretty much alike in the vast majority of areas, with any differences coming across more as mere quirks and rendering oddities than anything else. Other than the use of QAA and varying gamma curves, only performance really separates them in any meaningful way. And even in this regard, ACB has seen some noticeable improvements on the PS3 side.


360


PS3

In terms of performance past Assassin’s Creed titles have always been behind on the PS3, with more instances of slowdown and much greater amounts of screen tearing. Although in Brotherhood the gap has indeed been closed significantly, with less in the way of either taking place. Naturally, it is the 360 build which still commands an advantage, but both at times, feel and look very similar in this regard.

When looking at both 360 and PS3 versions of most games, it is clear that developers usually try to balance out the use of v-sync with trying to maintain a smooth framerate. Normally, PS3 owners are privy to a near solidly v-synced experience at the expense of a large increase in slowdown. Whilst on the 360, developers usually choose the opposite: ditching v-sync in order to allow for a smoother experience, but with noticeable amounts of screen tearing.

For ACB, like with past AC titles, Ubisoft Montreal have favoured the latter, in which case it is apparent that neither version employs v-sync but both can run relatively smoothly on many occasions. ACB targets a 30fps update, and the framerate is capped at that level – it never goes higher than this, but it does drop below.

However, both versions actually maintain a reasonably solid 30fps most of the time when load isn't being pushed – noticeable drops only really occur in situations where long draw distances are visible, or in areas in the city where crowds converse together. In these sections the 360 version does run smoother, featuring less prolonged dips in framerate (sometimes only by a few seconds or so) and less screen tearing. Although, on most occasions the two games operate near identically, with both dropping frames and tearing terribly at similar points. Bar perhaps the odd point in which the PS3 version felt a little smoother for a brief moment in time.

One thing that is apparent, is that the game on both platforms can suffer from regular, and continuous bouts of screen tearing even when the framerate appears to be mostly solid during the experience. In that respect, it is all too obvious that this concern from the first two AC titles hasn’t been fixed at all. The PS3 version tears more often than the 360 one, and both tear regularly in heavy load situations. Though perhaps this is something that we simply have to accept in order to gain better performance via a smoother overall framerate.

In the end ACB does display an improvement in this area on the PS3, although not quite to the extent we expected given Ubisoft publically released statement. Tearing is still an issue – more torn frames on the PS3 – and the framerate at times still struggles in a scenes with high detail and many characters on screen – on both formats no less. In which case it is obvious that despite some upgrades and optimisations, the PS3 version is still a little behind in terms of overall performance.

Saying that, there are often times where both versions are basically close to being like-for-like, and the differences during gameplay can be so subtle that they can regularly go unnoticed (between both formats). Screen tearing aside, both versions are reasonable performers, with the engine obviously struggling in situations where the overall load exceeds the capacity for it to be resolved.


360


PS3

Moving on, and we can see that the engine powering ACB on both platforms has seen a few steady improvements in the lighting and shadowing departments, along with other additional effects – the water for example, in some places, now looks to be made up of more than just a few texture changes.

Dynamic lighting and shadowing has been expanded upon, and the game features noticeable cloud coverage providing moving shadows which seem to affect the lighting and shadowing on the ground. All of this is done in real time, and actually accounts for some of the shadowing differences you can see in some of the screens.


360


PS3

The most obvious improvement comes with the inclusion of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), which adds an extra level of depth to the scene. Use of SSAO clearly expands the shadowing properties used throughout most of the game, and can be found noticeably on characters, and some parts of the environment. Along with the use of both dynamic and static shadowing, the use of SSAO helps to bring a more defining, realistic quality to the entire scene, with ample balance between areas of the environment with and without the effect.

Also in terms of shadowing, one thing we did notice was that certain shadows feature a slightly dithered look to them, much like what we were seeing in Mafia II. The effect stands out a little more on the 360, along with the shadowmaps themselves, which look sharper as a result of no QAA blurring. However, it also appears that the PS3’s use of QAA actually provides better blending with regards to the dithering effect - it becomes less obvious as a result.


360


PS3

In motion it is also possible to see some LOD issues with regards to the game’s use of shadowmaps - whereby shadowmaps feature a transitional change from lower to higher quality as you get closer to them - along with LOD issues on both platforms in general. Parts of the environment (textures, geometry, and shadows) in both the far distance and from a few feet away, tend to pop up noticeably on occasion as the engine struggles to load them in time. Though given the large draw distances it has to handle, this is understandable.

There are a few other differences to be found, but nothing major, or even anything that would really account for a clear rendering choice difference. Some shadowing and lighting oddities occasionally pop up – such as missing baked lighting on the PS3, or shadows appearing and popping in and out where they shouldn’t be. But this stuff isn’t noticeable whilst simply playing the game.


360


PS3

In the end Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is pretty solid on both platforms with the 360 version maintaining that technical edge in certain areas. On the other hand, with the exception of more screen tearing and the inclusion of the texture blurring QAA, the PS3 build is almost a good, having the same baseline assets and tech powering the game.

Even the use of QAA is no real blemish on the experience – calibrating both the game’s brightness level and the gamma on the HDTV makes overall image sharpness fairly close to that of the 360 game in this regard. The extra edge smoothing that quincunx provides can also create a more organic look to the overall visual make up of the game as a whole, with only some scenes looking noticeably worse off than others in terms of texture blur. In any case the PS3 version can be almost equally attractive if set up properly, even if the 360 game's additional sharpness is preferable.

Pretty much every aspect of the game in other areas is a like-for-like match, with only the odd rendering bug to separate them, and of course the 360 version’s lead in overall performance. But even that isn’t quite as commanding as with previous instalments – despite the PS3 build suffering from more noticeable bouts of screen tearing, the general framerate is pretty much in the same ballpark for both versions, with the 360 only fairing a little better in most cases from what we’ve played.

As to whether Ubisoft have delivered on their promise to provide a thoroughly more optimised, de-bugged PS3 experience. I think that as a whole they have. While perhaps not eradicating all of the problems found in previous titles, the overall result is far, far closer than before, with the 360 code no longer having a significant advantage. In short, there could be more work done to improve performance, but otherwise what we have here is a clear step forward in the right direction - a solid result in delivering a decent multi-platform outcome.

Ultimately, ACB can be comfortably recommended across both formats with your purchasing decision more likely coming down to which controller you prefer to use, or which format your friends play online with. The added inclusion of exclusive DLC for PS3 owners is yet another thing to consider, if a choice is indeed available to you. Either way, I’m sure most users will be happy whichever version they opt to go for.

As always, many thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to Cynamite.de for most of the screens. The full gallery can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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