Editorial: Sega Outsources Sonic 4 Development

When Sega announced Project Needlemouse late last year it was said that the game would be developed via a collaboration between different in-house studios worldwide. It turns out however that this wasn’t actually the case, and that a separate company outside Sega is handling the game. Osaka-based Dimps corporation is essentially doing all the coding and modelling work on Sonic 4, with a so far un-named studio inside Sega handling all the character and art design work.



Now this isn’t the first time that Sega have developed a Sonic game with outside assistance. They did the very same thing way back in the early nineties when creating the Master System and Game Gear series of Sonic games. The first game was developed by Ancient Corp - a company managed by renowned Sega musician and sound designer Yūzō Koshiro - whilst the remaining later instalments were done by Aspect Co, Ltd, another external company with ties to Sega. So it’s not quite so unusual as you might have first thought, to have a lead franchise handled and developed externally.

Going back to Sonic 4, you might like to know that Dimps, were actually the company responsible for making all three Sonic Advance games for Sega on Nintendo’s GameBoy Advance handheld system. These titles were the closest thing in terms of gameplay and polish to the original Megadrive/Genesis Sonic The Hedgehog games, featuring classic loop-de-loops, interesting level designs requiring you to both explore and build up momentum for the faster sections, as well as having new take on the classic bosses found in the original games. However after the first Sonic Advance game, Dimps began the age-old trick of expanding the gameplay for the other characters, whilst making the level layouts more convoluted and confusing.

Sonic Adv2 and most certainly Adv3 were slower games than the first one, having greater emphasis on pure platforming and exploration rather than speed. However the addition of extra characters, and making the stages longer and more complicated affairs in order to fit their different playstyles just didn’t work very well. Sonic Adv3 especially felt overly complicated in this respect, and didn’t feature the same level of ebb and flow seen in the first two arguably polished instalments.

In regards to these criticisms, we hope that Dimps actually look towards the type of design used in not only the first Sonic Advance, but also to those found in the original four Megadrive/Genesis titles that set the benchmark for all future Sonic games to follow. However we also have a lot of hope too, considering that the they single-handily managed to produce a fairly faithful 2D instalment for the first time some seven years ago, there’s no reason to not expect them to do it again for Sonic 4, especially considering Dimps as accompany, is quite similar today as it was back then, unlike Sega who shed most of it’s highly regarded game designers and visionaries back in 2004 a year after they were purchased by Sammy Corp.

It’s with this particular statement, that Sega aren’t really the same Sega we know and love anymore – except for maybe AM2 – that perhaps having an external development team, with experience in producing more traditional Sonic The Hedgehog type games, is a far better bet than having Sonic Team produced the whole thing themselves, considering that their output has been less than stellar since the demise of the Dreamcast.



Overall, the news comes as a welcoming surprise, not only bringing back some of the excitement I felt after Sega announced the game, but also re-establishing some of my faith lost soon after seeing that teaser trailer shown off on the same day. Arguably, having Dimps involved is a good sign that Sega themselves is taking on the responsibility of making sure we have a game that is both as good as it can be, whilst also being faithful to the games it is supposed to succeed.

Dimps might have made some missteps with Sonic Advance 3, but like so many of us growing up, they can also learn from their mistakes and move forward with a greater understanding of what works well, and what doesn’t.

Sonic The Hedgehog 4 will be released sometime this summer for XB Live Arcade, PSN, and Nintendo’s WiiWare online shop. We’ll be following this one closely here at IQGamer with more in-depth coverage to come.

Heavy Rain: Demo Impressions

Late last week Sony released a demo of Quantic Dream’s upcoming Heavy Rain (HR), a game that promises to evoke some sort of deep emotional response from all who sample its delights, branching out and away from being just another interactive movie into something else completely, a new experience in which you should be able to ‘feel’ with the characters and become entangled in their own troubled minds, or so that’s the idea they are hoping for.



My interest with Heavy Rain peaked after playing through two sections of the game at the Eurogamer Expo back in October last year. It felt very much like an more in depth version of Sega’s hugely loved, but massively unsuccessful Shenmue, featuring greater levels of interactivity during the Quick Timer Event style (QTE’s) cut scenes, along with better dialogue and tighter direction, whilst also having less of the rather cool, but mundane stuff; like being able to pick up and look at various items in the shops you ventured into, or simply having fun by harassing random people in the street.

However unlike Shenmue, Heavy Rain’s slice of cinematic gaming is a far more tightly directed and concise affair, spending an increased amount of time setting up a connection between the player and the characters on screen, whilst also making you feel what they are going through both mentally and physically. In this aspect director David Cage and the developers at Quantic, have taken the time to present a much greater link between the actions displayed on screen with what happens on your controller. In this new PSN demo - in which there are two separate scenarios to play - the second one best demonstrates the combination of visual cues and control used for that effect perfectly.



In the second part of the demo, the game sees you playing as Norman Jaden, an FBI investigator closely analysing a crime scene found just over by a railway line, gathering evidence and making small connections to the serial killer. At one point the evidence you find leads you up a wet, muddy embankment, and it’s here that the game showcases one of the much talked about links to evoking emotion.

The way the QTE system is used in this section is incredibly immersive, and really does add to the sense of feeling the developers are trying to create. As you are climbing up the bank, the game makes you push and hold down a series of buttons, slowly making the combinations more difficult for your fingers to reach - making it uncomfortable for you - while at the same time moving across the pad with the face buttons and then bringing in both L1 and R1 into the mix, moving back and forth between them. If you let go of either of the two buttons still in play, you will find yourself sliding back down to the bottom and having to repeat the process all over again. When you’ve finished gathering any evidence you might need and begin heading back down. The game gives you a much easier, but by no means less successful, set of combinations to push as you run down the bank attempting to not slide on your arse as you do so. Essentially this involves quickly alternating between pushing the L and R buttons as you take each step before reaching the bottom.

The controls in this scene cleverly combine your own emotions with the character’s on screen, and it does this by either pairing up the buttons you push with what your character is doing, or by simply making you feel their difficultly using harder to reach button combinations at different speeds. It’s a nice concept that could have fallen completely flat on its face. However Quantic Dream seem to have thought things through very carefully and have not been at all brash with their implementation.



The same style can be found in the more regular QTE fight sequence from the first part of the demo, though perhaps less convincing, in which various rolling motions with the right analogue stick are used, along with frantic button presses and various timed releases to produce an exhilarating effect, making you completely involved without so much as quick second or so break in between actions. A more hectic and expanded version of the system used in Shenmue is what this most feels like, and if Yu Suzuki’s game were released today then I would probably expect something similar.

Along with these mandatory QTE events, the game also has some more sedate sections, which has you briefly talking to people and examining evidence scattered around a crime scene. In this scene the controls are also context sensitive and used to produce the same effect in a similar way. You might find yourself rolling the right analogue stick a quarter-circle in a forwards-upward motion to pull out your ID badge for example, or pushing down on the stick to pick any evidence you might find. Again, all these motions attempt to make it feel like you are actually doing these things instead of arbitrarily pushing a button baring no resemblance to the movement you are performing.

It’s pure genius; it really is, and it never feels forced or contrived either, which is exactly how any well thought out gameplay system should be.



The voice acting however, and the dialogue isn’t quite so inspired, quite often failing within the small self contained contexts found in the demo, with flat delivery and a decidedly clichéd script. The most noticeable thing is that the conversations never flow smoothly when you are in control of choosing a response, giving out answers or asking questions. Instead the often-stilted dialogue comes out much better during the pre-scripted parts of the scene in which you have no control, flowing far more like a real conversation. However as with any game giving you multiple choices for dialogue, it’s not always possible to blend the different responses in a way that seem natural without taking away some of the users freedom in how the they will want to express themselves. It’s just a common side effect of this open system which is always going to be present. Although with Heavy Rain setting the bar so high for trying to evoke an emotional response, it can seem quite jarring to the experience, especially when you have either plainly flat delivery of vocals, or enthusiastic over-acting which comes across as cliché.

Despite this, the choices you make and how the characters respond in conjunction with the controls, all make Heavy Rain a very interesting prospect. Sure, we don’t know how the outcomes in any of these two scenes will impact on the rest of the game, or really know enough about the characters to care about them, or even to make a connection. But we do know, that all these little nuances add up to form something quite different and a potentially very involving experience. Perhaps Heavy Rain might not end up making you cry- which according to David Cage is one of his ambitions to achieve in a game - but instead be sucking you in deeper than you have ever been before, giving you a greater feeling of connection through the controls, dialogue, and story.



We will find out in a couple of weeks time how successful Mr Cage and Quantic Dream have been in delivering their promises. However, even if they haven’t, they’ll still have made what looks like could be one of the most intriguing, inventive games around; something that hardly any developers these days can put a claim to. Either way, I will be giving this one a thorough play through before delivering any definitive conclusions in the eventual IQGamer review.

Until then you should check out Beames on Games for another interesting take on Heavy Rain, along with more talk of that illustrious multi-million dollar flop that was Shenmue, which by the way, if you haven’t actually played already, should really pick it up along with a Dreamcast and do so.

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.