Street Fighter IV Coming To... iPhone!

In a rather ambitious move, and one that I thought never would happen, or really expected, Capcom have announced that they are in the process of porting Street Fighter IV to the iPhone. Bizarrely over the last few weeks I had been thinking and talking about how a version of Street Fighter II might work if they ported it to Apple’s portable platform, without ever realising that they were doing almost just that.

Having a simplistic fighting game control well on the iPhone would be no small task, and here we have Capcom attempting to replicate SFIV’s intricate gameplay system without the use of any real buttons or even a directional slider. What’s more impressive though, is that they reckon that they’ll be able to pull it off whilst keeping a reasonable amount of graphical fidelity from the console versions, and get the game out by March. Certainly going by the screenshots below, it may just about be possible.



On the base of it SFIV for the iPhone will use both a virtual touch screen d-pad and buttons for its controls, with players performing all the routine quarter-circle motions and 360-degree rotations by rubbing their fingers over the touch screen, much like in GTA Chinatown Wars. However it appears that the game only uses four buttons for attacks instead of the usual six, with two being used for a punch and kick respectively, and the other two, we have no idea, though it looks likely for pulling off special moves or focus attacks. A range of options allowing players to configure the virtual control’s position, button transparency, and set-up will also be available for maximum comfort and ease of use, which is absolutely essential if they are serious about providing a solid experience for the SF faithful to play and enjoy.

Visually the iPhone version of SFIV features art assets taken directly from the current-gen PS3 and 360 versions, aptly scaled down with minimal detail loss and with the spectacular Super and Ultra moves remaining intact. As you can see the results are very impressive, and it would be nice to see something like this being made for the PSP – a platform in which the hardcore can more seriously take to potable play. However to see this up and running so solidly on the iPhone shows that Capcom are both serious and committed to making this work.



In addition to having touch screen controls and similar graphics, the game will include a wealth of familiar faces, including the likes of Ryu, Ken, Zangief, and Chun Li, plus some characters new to the SFIV universe. Various modes such as Arcade, Tournament, Dojo (training essentially), and Versus are all being included, so not only can you practice getting to grips with the new controls, you can then try out your new found skills against your best mate who just downloaded the game out of curiosity.

So far the iPhone edition of Street Fighter IV is looking good, and I personally cannot wait to see this running in the flesh at a hopeful 60fps. Really, I just wanna see if they can get a sensible degree of accuracy with the motion controls and show that the iPhone can successfully be used as a base for serious hardcore games.

Tech Analysis: Bioshock 2 (PS3 - 360)

Earlier this week we brought you our in-depth analysis on the technically proficient Dante’s Inferno, a game that impressed us with its startlingly solid approach to achieving almost 100% parity across both PS3 and 360, and if it weren’t for a slight horizontal blur on the 360 version, it would have been absolutely identical. Now at IQGamer we roll out the same treatment for Bioshock 2, going over every detail with a fine toothcomb seeing just how close both PS3 and 360 versions are, and of course take a look at the reasons behind any technical differences we find.

First impressions of Bioshock 2 are rather good, there initially seemed to be very little in the way of differences between both versions of the game, with texture detail being very similar and sharpness being pretty much equal. Lighting looked also to be on par for both PS3 and 360, with the only difference I noticed were with regards to the gamma levels being lower on 360, making for some loss of shadow detail in dark areas. However just a few minutes into the game things began to change, and it was extremely clear than something was going on with regards to how the effects were rendered in both versions, and the impact it was having on overall image quality.

Before I go into detail about those changes I’ll start by saying that Bioshock 2 renders in 720p (1280x720) for both platforms, with the 360 gaining an image quality advantage from having 2xMSAA (multi-sample anti-aliasing) and the PS3 version once again having no AA solution whatsoever, though a slight edge blur is present without affecting edge sharpness to any detriment. The level of sharpness with regards to the actual geometry is identical across both platforms, and this only changes when certain visual effects are present, in which case the PS3 game seems to blur noticeably over the 360 one.



In terms of texture detail and filtering, there are advantages and disadvantages on both versions to consider. These are the same ones we find on most cross platform PS3/360 ports or conversions. The 360 game seems to have a very slight edge in texture quality and detail, though not always in all circumstances. In most areas textures are actually identical across both platforms, and in other areas in which some textures seem blurrier on PS3, they are in fact the same as on 360, with the blurring caused by the lower resolution alpha and transparency effects being rendered.

In terms of texture filtering, anisotropic is present on the PS3 with 360 instead using the older trilinear method, meaning that texture detail is clearer from further away on PS3, which can lead to some of that version’s less detailed textures actually looking more detailed from a distance.

The PS3 also sees a small advantage in the area of texture streaming and with the LOD system present in the game. When playing through both versions one thing that did strike out at me was that texture pop-in was a semi-regular occurrence on 360, with on some occasions in which the higher quality mipmap would load in only a few feet away from the object you were approaching. This issue was quite infrequent and by and large didn’t affect the most prominent areas of scenery. By contrast when playing the PS3 game I noticed hardly any texture pop-in whatsoever, despite the fact that the extra level of filtering made it easier to spot any potential issues with this problem.

The reason behind this seems to stem from the fact that the PS3 game is streaming textures directly from the Hard Drive, in which there is a 5GB mandatory install, whereas the 360 is having to load them in directly from DVD. Essentially the PS3 has greater available bandwidth to do this via the HDD compared to 360’s DVD drive, which allows it to push through more higher quality textures at faster speeds, though not necessarily displaying more texture detail, as this is still limited by the system’s internal RAM.

Earlier we mentioned that there was a noticeable difference on how each version renders its transparency and alpha effects. Basically on PS3 all effects are rendered in as little as a quarter of HD resolution, whilst they are of full resolution on the 360. As we have pointed out before in our Dante’s Inferno comparison, this is done on the PS3 to save bandwidth as there is much less available than on Microsoft’s console. The PS3 only has around 21.6GBs per-second worth of bandwidth available for framebuffer effects compared to a huge 250GBs that the 360 can draw upon. This means that in order to render all the same visual details they have to be displayed at a lower resolution in order to fit into the bandwidth requirements of the PS3.



The effects of this can be seen above. Notice how the water running down the stairs is much blurrier than the surrounding stairwell and the stairs themselves. The same thing can be seen with almost all water, fire and particle effects in the game. It does mean that although textures are almost the same in both versions, the lower resolution effects tend to blur out those very same textures on the PS3. Basically the high res bump mapping and texture detail is effectively being displayed at a lower resolution and upscaled every time a transparency or alpha-based effect is rendered on top of them. With this happening frequently - as Rapture is an underwater city, leaking and slowing decaying with age - you find that the entire scene has a tendency to blur when all these visual effects are present, thus negating any advantage the PS3 version might have had with its use of better filtering and superior LOD system.

These lower res effects also feature less animation than those of the 360 game, with most of the water effects being affected, along with some rather strange errors when it came to rendering certain flame effects, and seemingly random objects in Rapture’s various rooms. Some pixallation occurs when viewing these at various angles and at long distances, and although this isn’t as apparent up close, you can still see that something doesn’t look quite right. In addition it seems that there is less, or more subtle use of bump mapping on the PS3 when compared to the 360. Sometimes it appears that the levels used are the same, at other times it seems like the PS3 is lacking in that department. Perhaps the reduced resolution alpha effects are to blame, as in areas in which there is very few of them, the bump mapping appears to be much better and can reach parity with the 360.

However there are many times when the use of lower res buffers hardly impacts upon image quality at all, looking nigh on indistinguishable from the 360 version. From what I’ve observed, this mainly applies to pools of water located on the floor in small dark corridors, or areas with low light levels. In these cases texture detail, bump mapping and IQ of the effects looked only slightly worse, and sometimes pretty much identical, showing that you don’t always need the technical advantage to produce similar results. Unfortunately this is the exception rather than the rule when talking about Bioshock 2.

You see, another issue is that these reduced resolution effects, and strangely rendered texture anomalies on the PS3 also give the game a slightly more washed out look than the 360 one. Differences in gamma between both versions we also believe attributes to this as well. The 360 game has lower gamma levels than the PS3 which means any details in really dark areas suffer from a slight black crush. Even after calibrating both consoles and the TV, the two versions couldn’t be matched up in a way that didn’t reduce the black levels of the 360 version, whilst still failing to reveal shadow detail. It’s not a massive difference, and doesn’t impact in the enjoyment of the game in any serious way, although people playing the PS3 version first will certainly notice.



Performance wise there are similar trade-offs but between smoothness and screen tearing. The PS3 version suffers from next to no screen tearing whatsoever when compared to the 360, though it does slow down more frequently in heavy battle scenes with lots going on.

Bioshock 2 runs at a near constant 30fps for most of the time, with only occasional screen tear and slow down only really occuring when lots of stuff is happening on screen at once. Occasionally I’ve noticed that the game will tear for a split second just randomly as you are venturing along Rapture’s many corridors and communal areas. Not sure why this happens, and it doesn’t seem to be performance related. The most likely candidate is triple buffering, in which the game renders several frames as a back up in case one or more of the frames are torn. It appears that occasionally the game loses one or two of its frames to tearing, and the triple buffering system accidentally displays one of those instead of a clean frame.

This however comes as a cost to the framerate, and when the PS3 game slows down it does so more frequently than the 360 one and for longer. The controls tend to suffer slightly as a result, loosing responsiveness for a brief second or two on top of the slight lag caused by the use of triple-buffering.

With the 360 game the framerate is a much steadier affair, although in response you get a greater amount of tearing. What looks to be happening isn’t always a case of a greater volume of tearing, though this does happen, and much more than you might think, but rather when the tearing occurs, it simply stays on screen a little longer than when the same thing happens on PS3. On the 360 the game also tears frequently in the overscan area of the picture, something that never occurs on PS3. Now this is an area that you simply cannot see unless you turn off the overscan option on your TV. So for 99% of people it won’t be seen at all, and naturally because of this, won’t impact in any way on your experience of the game.

In terms of performance there is no clear winner here. The PS3 drops framerate more often but has virtually no screen tear, and the 360 one doing the opposite; suffering from a greater amount of tearing but having much less in the way of slow down, making the game a smoother more responsive experience. Either way both versions present the gamer with a smooth enough engrossing experience, and the slow down on PS3 doesn’t prevent you from really enjoying the game, as it doesn’t happen very often.

In the end whilst both versions of Bioshock 2 are excellent in their own right, it is the 360 version which takes the lead, with it’s higher resolutions effects, better bump-mapping and smoother framerate, making for an all round more immersive experience. The PS3 game with its low resolution effects, although still a great game and one which looks pretty damn good at times, ventures into a slightly blurry mess on occasions when lots of water, transparencies and particles are on screen. Sadly that can be pretty often, which is a real shame as these effects are integral to helping create Bioshock’s wondrous and foreboding atmosphere.

Either way if you only have a PS3 don’t be discouraged, as many of the issues seen here are not always apparent, plus you get next to no screen tearing and a still very good looking game (in many places at least), just not as technically accomplished one.

Overall if you have both systems and given the choice, I’d say that the 360 game is the one to get.

If of course you've had enough of reading about all this tech stuff, or simply looked at those pictures instead, head on over to Beames on Games for the full review of Bioshock 2.

Why 60fps Is Important: Visceral Games

On Monday we covered Dante’s Inferno in one of our regular Tech Analysis features, and one of the main points I made was how well the game managed to hold a steady 60 frames per-second. In fact the demo never drops any frames at all, and in the final game I’ve been told that it does so only on a three or four occasions. This is certainly a feat most games in the current gen simply do not achieve, and perhaps should look toward, especially when it has such a strong impact with regards to gameplay.



Now I’ve always been a firm advocate of having 60fps as the benchmark that all software developers should aspire to. The fluidity and motion clarity for graphics, and the extra degree of accuracy with regards to control, are all vastly important for creating a solid, perfectly fine-tuned gameplay experience, especially where timing is involved. 60fps isn’t just about how good things look, or how smooth they can go. It also plays a large part in how responsive the controls are and how quick you are able to respond to them. For example a game running at 30fps will give you only half the degree of control and range that you get when running at 60fps. You will loose much of the precision and accuracy gained by using a higher framerate.

However, visuals are also still an important backbone for the next-gen experience, and with 60fps comes not only smoother motion, but also a cleaner judder free image, one which retains more detail when moving at high speed compared to the same image running at 30fps. In effect you get detail visible on screen for longer periods whilst having a smoother more impressive look.

Visceral Games seem to agree, and in an in-depth interview with Gamasutra confirm how important having 60fps really is.

Jonathan Knight in the interview stated how he pushed forward the notion of the game (Dante’s Inferno) needing to run at 60fps to the dev team, making sure everyone was committed to making it happen, whilst still finding ways of displaying the same impressive special effects found in 30fps titles but at 60.

"I think any artist would be lying if they said that they didn't prefer to have more bandwidth," he said. "Any milliseconds you give them, they're going to use it on just one more effect, or what-have-you. But what we found is, it's more of a question of willpower than a technology question. And you just have to commit to it, and say, 'Here are your budgets. Here's the box we're gonna play in.'

He followed up with:

"30 frames is a very challenging box to play in as well, and so once you just get everybody bought into that, then what I've found is that the visual effects artists, and the environment artists, and so forth, they just found ways to make stuff look good at 60, and you just have to hold them to it."

In addition Knight also feels that 60fps can help improve the overall quality of the visual experience:

"If you were to take a screenshot, you might be able to point out, like, 'OK, here's the compromise you made because of your frame-rate,' but when you sit and play the game, the overall visual experience is enhanced by the fast frame-rate. So, I can't really decouple graphics from frame-rate; I don't feel like it's an either/or situation."



His statements seem to reflect those found in other studios that champion the use of higher framerates, such as Infinity Ward, Polyphony Digital, Turn 10 and Sony’s Studio Liverpool. All of which stand by the use of higher framerates not only as a means to push the envelope graphically, but also to enhance the overall gameplay experience.

With Visceral Games on board, it’s good to see at least another developer committing to pushing higher framerates this generation, and with the 3D revolution potentially only a few months away, it will become increasingly more important to do so.

IQGamer will be publishing an in-depth feature on 60fps and why it matters in the near future.

Tech Analysis: Dante's Inferno

Dante’s Inferno may be a blatant God Of War rip off, but it is also one of the best examples of platform parity across PS3 and Xbox 360. It does so not by playing to the strengths of each machine, but by simply having an engine which barely taxes either system, making some concessions to alleviate the issue of PS3 having a lack of available bandwidth, and 360’s need to fit the framebuffer into it’s 10mb worth of EDRAM.

You could almost say that Visceral Games effort is an almost exemplary example on how to get a game running and looking identical on both platforms, or rather almost 100% identical. The only exception we noticed to that being a slight blurring of the image on 360, but more on that later.



Dante’s Inferno runs at a flawless 60fps on both PS3 and 360, with no noticeable sign of screen tearing or framerate drops, which in it self is quite impressive for a multi-platform title. However it does this through using only a limited number of memory and shader intensive effects. So what we have here is mostly flat looking textures, with bump mapping reserved for the characters and only certain parts of the environment.

The game is rendered on both PS3 and 360 in 720p (1280x720) with no anti-aliasing of any kind. This allows the framebuffer to fit into the 10mb EDRAN found on 360’s GPU, whilst making the conversion to PS3 much easier as it doesn’t put a stain on the bandwidth. The resolution of transparencies and particle effects usually lowered on PS3 due to the lack of available bandwidth has been compromised on both versions. So instead of 360 having the usual advantage when it comes to displaying loads of multi-layered effects, it’s merely equal across the board. Again this basically allows the smooth running of the game on both platforms whilst keeping the actual look identical; certainly, it’s how Visceral have achieved the constant 60fps on display.

Anisotropic filtering and texture detail is like for like across both versions, demonstrating clean and clear characters and vistas, though the overall sense of scale is rather small, and the detail itself is somewhat simple when compared to the likes of Bayonetta or Devil May Cry. Serviceable is how I think you could best describe the overall look and technical application.



Now earlier we mentioned that both PS3 and 360 games were almost identical, except for a slight blurring on the 360 version. This blur whilst being hardly visible during fast moving scenes can be clearly seen in the still screenshots above, and during more sedate moments of gameplay. It seems that there is a horizontal 1-pixel wide blur on all edges, with no apparent reason as to why. It could be that the developers still wanted some sort of AA solution, but seeing as 720p 2xAA may not have fit into the EDRAM, they thought a simple blur approach would suffice. It’s perhaps the only blemish on what can be considered one of the best multi-platform conversion examples available on both consoles.

Overall, Visceral Games have shown just how to successfully accomplish a good multi-platform conversion without sacrificing too much from each version along the way. Sure they could have played up to the 360’s strengths and added higher-resolution effects and more particles, or had extra HDR lighting on the PS3 game, but it would have taken longer to develop and required more optimising for both versions. This is a problem most would rather avoid, so it’s easier to go down the safe route, and keep your development budget under control and get good results, rather than having it spiral out with two different versions, each having their own tweaks, and neither achieving parity.

Date’s Inferno shows you don’t need to achieve a massive technical accomplishment when creating a game, but rather just a well thought out approach and a solid underlying engine, which can perform on both systems without needing to radically tailor features to each one.

In this respect Visceral have been successful, and I imagine that more developers will go down the same path seeing as it can work so well.

Editorial: Can Sega Make Sonic 4 Succeed?

Yesterday Sega unveiled Sonic The Hedgehog 4 to the world, and in flurry of excitement and burning anticipation we brought that news to you at IQGamer. Today the dust has settled and a dead calmness has set in, bringing with it feelings of anxiety and doubt as to whether what we saw yesterday could really live up to its promise. The legacy sewn by those faithful four original Megadrive games is not something easily replicated, even for Sega who produced the graphically impressive but rather flawed Sonic CD some 17 years ago.

Given Sega’s track record these last few years, filled with failed 3D attempts to capture that 16bit essence, a disastrous reboot in the form of a next-gen Sonic Adventure sequel, along with a handful of outsourced 2D handheld instalments which seem to completely forget just what Sonic games were all about, my cause for concern is far from being misplaced.



Having this all-new 2D Sonic game as a sequel to Sonic and Sonic & Knuckles is a tall order to fill. Creating a canonical successor in a similar style and with respect for the source material is no easy task, especially some 16 years on. Only a few developers such as Capcom with Street Fighter IV, Mega Man 9 and Bionic Commando Rearmed have truly succeeded in doing this.

Sega looks like it’s trying its best with what they have, and in an interview with GameSpot, Ken Balough seemed to be addressing most of my concerns, along with other die-hard fans. Essentially he told GS that the team was going back to the MD games, and using them as the template for Sonic 4, however the style and tone of the game would be as if the series was created today rather than 16 years ago.



In the trailer released the visual look of Sonic 4 was clearly a natural follow on from the likes of Sonic 2, with a hint of Sonic 3 and demonstrating a modern twist on the proceedings. However there are certain things which don’t look quite right. Sonic’s character model for starters looks a bit iffy, almost like a throwback to the design used in Sonic and the Secret Rings, and currently suffers from some uncomfortable running animations. The stage shown in the trailer also looked a little too much like it was from a well made mugen game, and lacked the style you'd expect from a true sequel to Sonic and Knuckles, whist also feeling slightly unfinished from a graphical perspective. However the inclusion of parallax scrolling in the background brought a twinkle to my eye, and it was rather impressive seeing the effect updated using todays hardware. From a stylistic point of view though, Surely Sega should be looking at replicating a new take on the style featured in Knuckles Chaotix, or at the very least Sonic 3, especially as Sonic 4 is supposed to be a proper game in the series?



Maybe this will change as development progresses, though seeing as the release is only a few months away I have a sneaking suspicion that it probably won’t. Still, at least we have a style that fits in with the original Sonic games, with an updated look for the current generation. It could be much worse.



Gameplay wise it was most certainly impossible to gauge just how Sonic 4 will pan out. With only a couple of seconds of footage showing very little other than Sonic briefly jumping on a few enemies, and speeding through a corkscrew platform before reaching the end of the stage. Although comments from Sega’s Ken Balough can allow us to at least assume that they have forgotten about Sonic being about speed, and will instead be focusing on having cleaverer level design based around building up momentum; finding that ‘perfect path’ through the level, and effectively achieving max speed via skill instead of by simply holding down the d-pad in the forwards direction.

This is what needs to happen, as this insistence on speed is what killed the GBA games, and made Sonic Rush nigh on unplayable for anyone used to the MD games of old.

Sega should also create new enemies in the style of the old ones, rather than simply rehashing and updating existing badniks for the 21st century. Old bosses should be given new tweaks, and mixed up with some innovative new ideas all in keeping with what the classic franchise is known for. Maybe they should look towards both Sonic CD and Knuckles Chaoix for inspiration, as both these games had more elaborate set pieces and boss designs than their MD counterparts. In essence creating a really authentic follow up in the form of Sonic 4.



Musically rather than just also reworking old themes as with the graphics, Sega should ideally be looking to create original new music for both the title theme and the tunes to be used in the various stages themselves. A new theme tune, if they come up with one, should be in keeping with the style and direction the series was heading in with Sonic & Knuckles, whilst taking care not to parody the series iconic sounds, and simply build on the foundations laid down all those years ago.

Ultimately this latest instalment cannot be just a cheap fan service attempt, certainly not if Sega expect it to be taken seriously as a proper Sonic 4, although that would still make for a potentially lovely game, it wouldn’t do the franchise any real justice. And that is what they need to show, if they are to redeem the brand and successfully move it forward looking to the future.

Anything that fans do complain about, or which they feel maybe isn’t quite right, I do expect Sega to listen to and correct in further episodes. I also expect they’ll expand upon the things that worked in the first episode, the style and ideas explored, whilst evolving them forward in preparation for potentially Sonic 5. That is, of course if they manage to hit the ground running with part 1 of Sonic 4.

Either way, Sonic 4 represents a trial and proving ground to see if a revival can be done, and if Sega still has what it takes to make this happen.

For the sake of the character and the franchise I really do hope so.

Sega Announces Sonic The Hedgehog 4

Today SEGA finally revealed just what Project Needlemouse is all about, and unlike what you may have thought; it’s not just a return to the character’s 16bit roots, but also a fully-fledged sequel to Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Say hello to Sonic The Hedgehog 4!

Sonic 4 is to be released as an episodic series of download titles making its way to all three major platforms (PS3, 360 and Wii), and will be a proper 2D game created using 3D graphics and visual effects. Both 360 and PS3 versions will run natively in 1080p whilst the Wii version gets 480p instead. Motion controls are being added to both the Wii and PS3 versions, though the PS3 game will only have mild Sixaxis usage.

SEGA also plans to rework some of the music from the classic 16bit titles, along with creating new tunes in a similar style for Sonic 4. We also assume all the classic sound effects will be brought back or updated in the same way too.

With regards to the gameplay, Sonic 4 will feature only Sonic as a playable character, and will keep his entire repertoire of moves from the first four Megadrive games, whilst including the homing attack from the Sonic Adventure series.

In an interview with GameSpot Sega associate brand manager Ken Balough stated: “We're going to deliver a Genesis-era Sonic game as if it were created today that goes to the core of what classic Sonic fans desire.”

Certainly hearing that, and seeing the short but sweet trailer, gives us hope that this really will be Sonic’s shining return to form.

Sonic 4 Episode 1 is due out for download sometime this summer.