OnLive Gaming Service Comes To The UK

Last September OnLive began beta testing its brand new streaming video gaming service in the US, called unsurprisingly OnLive. The technology represented a whole new way of bringing videogames into the home. Rather than requiring a hardware box with specific processing components for rendering graphics, gameplay, etc, it acted more like a router or Internet connection device, instead delivering its content through the use of real-time streaming video.

Games aren’t downloaded onto a hard drive for play later on, instead they are instantly streamed on the fly, ready for the user as soon as the OnLive MicroConsole has started its download. During the beta controls were found to be fairly responsive, with some lag - much like the delayed responses to be found in many motion control titles on the Wii. The video stream was, at best, relatively serviceable, with evidence of macro blocking and a fare share of image break up. Detail had also been compromised as a result of the video compression scheme, lacking the same kind of intricacy found in a direct uncompressed HD source.

However, it did seem like a perfect compromise for the quality oblivious masses, in which around 50% still play their HD consoles in SD – some on a HDTV no less. I can see OnLive featuring as almost a games-on-demand rental service for most consumers, with the more serious of gamer types opting to buy a traditional console for maximum quality. Either way, the technology and idea represents a very different way of thinking when it comes to giving us a definitive gaming experience. There are upsides to the use of streaming video, mainly in the form of users not needing to have powerful hardware at their end, in a separate box powering the games. Instead, all the processing is done on high-end PC’s at OnLive and them streamed out through their array of data servers.

In ten years time, with broadband rapidly increasing in speed and reliability, we could be seeing a service such as this become the new face of traditional gaming. OnLive is in effect, in its current state, a big trial, a test to see not just how well the technology could work, but also if people are ready for such a business model so soon after the initial breakthrough.


For the United Kingdom OnLive are partnering with BT in rolling out a beta trial for sometime this summer, just after the final service goes live in the United States. Whilst no date has been set for the trial as of yet, we do know that it will be available through both a PC and MAC alongside the OnLive MicroConsole. Helping OnLive to pick up much needed market share in the territory is BT, who has purchased a 2.6 percent share in the company. This basically gives BT rights to bundle in the OnLive with its broadband packages increasing overall uptake compared to individual subscriptions.

Anyone not using BT will still be able to order the service directly through OnLive for use with their existing ISP. Users from all around Europe and the UK will be able to play against each other in online matches, along with community-based features such as Chat options, brag chips and profiles. Online play will be restricted between European and UK users only, although the community features will work regardless of region. So gamers can at least talk and compare profiles with their US counterparts.

So far various publishing companies, including the likes of Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two, Warner Bros. Interactive, THQ, Epic Games, Eidos, Atari Interactive, and Codemasters have already signed up to have their games available on the service. That’s a pretty large show of support and should allow most of the high-profile AAA release PC titles to make an appearance on the service, with other titles and publishers joining later down the line if it proves to be successful.


OnLive certainly looks promising, on paper at least. There is still some issues that need to be sorted out with control lag – which is pretty bad at this point – and with regards to the amount of compression used in the video stream, which at present is said to be somewhat blocky and unsuitable for fast motion. However, the service looks to provide the next step in videogame rentals at the very least, with a solid replacement for traditional retail games likely to come further in the future when high-end broadband speeds are available to most of the general public.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how well OnLive performs in the UK both technically, and from a consumer’s point of view, with the financials and quality of the tech being paramount to its success. The public must also be happy with how the service performs, along with having enough new content released each week to justify the entry fee each moth.

Nevertheless, what OnLive hopes to achieve could well revolutionise how the games playing public actually takes delivery of their gaming experiences. If done right, it could eventually replace the traditional consoles as the main source of gaming in the next ten to twenty years.

Review: Sin & Punishment 2 - SotS (Wii)

Ten years ago Treasure unleashed their little known but highly praised N64 classic, Sin & Punishment. It was a game that brought high-octane on-rails shooting to Nintendo’s failing 64bit system in a way not seen since the likes of Alien Solider on the Megadrive. Giant battles, continuous action, and challenging gameplay were all part and parcel of the experience, an experience though very well received, never made it anywhere outside of it’s native Japan.

Since the release of S&P Treasure has had only a few hits to their name. Outside the GameCube smash Ikaruga, and the commendable Astro Boy for GBA, there hasn’t been anything as iconic or sublimely brilliant at Radiant Silvergun, or even the original Sin & Punishment. Perhaps that’s because Treasure work best when investing in fresh new ideas, and not pandering around to its own rabid fanbase. It’s the main reason why, as a studio, they tend not to create sequels and only focus on new IP.

With this Wii sequel to the original S&P however, Treasure have delivered an experience that is in every way superior to the N64 original, featuring some of the most intensely fast-paced hardcore shooting action to be found on any console to date. If you like games that send wave upon wave of beautifully choreographed enemies your way, with some absolutely huge boss battles continuously emerging from the chaos, then you’ll love Sin & Punishment: Successor of the Skies (S&P2).


Like its predecessor S&P2 is an on-rails shooter. Guiding you along a fixed path, the game has you aiming and blasting your way through anything that stands in your way. Frequently your progress will be hampered by some show stopping gigantic creatures, in which the game mechanics and the on-rails nature briefly expands into something more free roaming, though still as tightly restrictive. In fact, right from the beginning it is clear that you have more control over your characters than in the original game, if only restricted to the view on screen. At the most, you can on occasion move inwards and outwards in addition to the standard left and right, giving you a brief moment of extra manoeuvrability.

The Nunchuck controls character movement, whilst the Wii Remote points and shoots at enemies across the screen. Camera movement is fixed, and your path is largely pre-determined, though you can move around the limited space given at any time. Two different characters are playable throughout the game, each with subtle differences adding some extra strategy to the game, and another excuse to play through the whole thing again once it’s finished.


Isa, the main one of the two and usual lead male protagonist, commands control of a jetpack and has the ability to unleash a charging shot of sorts, which explodes in a grenade-like fashion when it connects with enemies or the environment. Kachi, on the other hand, is a little different. The female of the bunch, she uses a hoverboard instead of a jetpack - yes, proper Back To The Future stylie - and features a lock-on charge shot that can target multiple enemies at once. Both characters can dodge, and also fight back with a standard melee attack, which can repel projectile attacks while still being the first choice for close-range combat.

Throughout most of S&P2 you will definitely need to use your entire arsenal, dodging and shooting your way past a multitude of foes, whilst making sure to keep that chain gauge going up. Later on in the game you’ll be faced with having to dodge through laser beams and constantly melee back projectile attacks, whilst at the same time trying to counter a gigantic boss creature’s main method of attack by firing off a well timed charged shot, disabling it for few seconds before repeating the whole process again. It’s pretty intense, and utterly exhilarating at the same time, being the most fun I’ve had with an arcade shooter in a long time.


It’s also a pretty tough ride all round. Though never unfair, the game requires you to simply learn enemy attack patterns and counter them effectively with the right set of moves. Most of the time, a well-planned dodge or some accurately positioned charge shots are all that is required. Whereas later on, you will need to mix it up using melee strikes and rapid gunfire in order to survive. That said there are a plentiful amount of checkpoints on offer, not least of all before every gigantic boss creature and end of level encounter, so you’re never far away from where you last died. Unlike Lost Planet 2, Sin & Punishment 2 absolutely nails down how old school progression should work, keeping things fair but challenging at all times.

The best part is that the entire game is filled with imaginative ideas, from the huge bosses and the smaller cannon fodder, to the level design and overall aesthetics. Sin & Punishment 2 is overflowing with an art style that is as original as it is bizarre, packed with a level of stylised beauty that could only have come from the minds at Treasure. Much of the game bares more than just a passing resemblance to Ikaruga, and at times it feels like this could almost be a spiritual successor to both Treasures much loved GCN shump and the Saturn classic Radiant Silvergun, though obviously unrelated to either.


Along with the unique art style and imaginative designs, the game also looks very pretty impressive from a graphical point of view. Visually, S&P2 is one of the best-looking Wii games, and doesn’t take its time to showcase its abilities. For one, the game runs at a buttery smooth sixty frames per-second almost constantly, with only minor drops in framerate. Bosses and the larger enemies are packed with detailed textures, bump mapping, and feature a liberal use of that next-generation sheen lacking in so many Wii games.

However, if there is one downside is that the game tends to look a little blocky, lacking consistantly high polygon counts, a result of having so much going on at any given time and keeping a smooth framerate. Also, despite featuring some of the sharpest, cleanest edges for a Wii game, S&P2 suffers from plenty of jagged edges, which means that playing this upscaled on a good flat panel HDTV is a painfully ugly process. Thankfully, any CRT owning folks out there can experience this in all its clear 480i/p glory, which really, is the best way to be playing S&P2.


With Sin & Punishment: Successor of the Skies there’s very little to complain about. Treasure have easily delivered one of their finest games of recent years, and one of the best arcade shooters to come out of any Japanese development studio in a long time. With it’s unique blend of imaginative ideas and art design, filled with unmistakably addictive on-rails action, S&P2 is not only an essential purchase, but also the best thing to come from the minds at Treasure since 2002’s Ikaruga. In many ways this deserves to be remembered as fondly as Radiant Silvergun, and maybe even some of their older 16bit hits as well.

What we have here is quite simply a modern classic, and perfect for anyone out there wanting some old-school action - something that you can dive in for a couple of minutes before getting lost into for several hours. Despite being a little short, it perfectly demonstrates what is missing in so many of today’s high profile titles, and shows that a tried and test formula can be equally refreshing as anything that attempts to push forward the boundaries of gaming.

VERDICT: 9/10

EA Locks Out Features From Used Games...

The battle against preowned games may have well and truly begun, as today EA announced the first title that would require an activation code to enable online play.

Maybe retailers should have thought about handing over some of those profits from used game sales back when they had the chance to make amends? Instead, they are now faced with potential reduction in preowned sales and a fall in the trade in price on certain titles due to the removal of multiplayer features.


Beginning with the release of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 on both PS3 and 360, EA will introduce a new ‘feature’ known as the Online Pass. This is a code which grants the user access to all the game’s online functionality along with any of the bonus features included. It is a one-time only registration option which allows the unlocked modes and extras to be available to just a single user, mostly likely being tied to their PSN or XBL accounts.

For people who purchased a used copy of the game, they will have to plunk down $10 for the Online Pass, or sign up for a 7-day free trial. Currently, there are plans to include the Online Pass in the company’s future sports line-up, which so far consists of NHL 11, Madden NFL 11, NCAA Football 11, NBA 11, FIFA 11, and EA Sports MMA. Each title will have different features unlocked when registering the Online Pass, although all titles will require the Pass to unlock any online functionality.

"This is an important inflection point in our business because it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community," stated Peter Moore, President of EA SPORTS.

Though he failed to mention any link to retailers profiteering on used game sales and the fact that the publisher makes nothing on each used game sold, it is clear that this introduction of a registration code to unlock ‘standard game features’ is a direct reaction to that particular problem. The Online Pass it seems appears to be another main component in the company’s Project Ten Tollar plan, aiming to give gamers another reason to buy new.

US retailer GameStop looks to have welcomed the change, highlighting that it is inline with their newly directed focus towards expanding their operations in digital game sales and downloadable content.

"GameStop is excited to partner with such a forward-thinking publisher as Electronic Arts," said Dan DeMatteo, Chief Executive Officer of GameStop Corp. "This relationship allows us to capitalize on our investments to market and sell downloadable content online, as well as through our network of stores worldwide."

It is likely that EA’s Online Pass will be sold on the retailer’s website, and that the user will receive the code via an email much like how Amazon’s PSN downloads work. Either way, not all retailers are positioning this as a doom and gloom situation, instead opening up new opportunities for future profitability.

You can read our report about EA’s Project Ten Dollar here, and about the new face of videogame trade-ins here.

Feature: The Future Of Videogame Trade-Ins?

The notion of trading in your old games for new ones, or just simply buying the latest new releases in second hand form seems to be a thorn in the side of videogames publishers. Or so it may seem, especially when reading reports on how companies like EA and Sony are gearing up for a battle to salvage sales of brand new ‘mint’ games whilst putting a dent into preowned, both in terms of sales and the customer trading in. Many of these companies are tired of sitting back and watching whilst the retailer makes money over and over again on titles in which the publishers can only sell once.

However, what if retailers gave back a small percentage of the profits created by used game sales, what about then? Would publishers now be willing to ‘play ball’ with the retailers on the current situation they find themselves in, or would they still be gunning to drastically cut down all preowned transactions? Well, an answer may be here sooner than you think, as GreenManGaming.com attempts to put all the benefits of used game trade-ins and sales to customers, whilst at the same time giving publishers and developers the support they need.


I’ve been saying for years that retailers should be giving back a percentage of their preowned profits to the publishers, and that if they did do such a thing, then the development community wouldn’t have so much of a problem with people wanting to trade-in and save money whilst still obtaining the latest releases. That idea, it seems, is also very favourable to the development community, who with the service offered at GreenManGaming’s new online portal, seem to be strongly in favour for the notion of trading in, and seeing cheaper versions of their latest products available, if only because they finally see some of the return on these sales.

Online, it seems is the perfect testing ground for this idea, and the ailing PC market also lends itself nicely for such an experiment with users constantly expecting lower prices, and struggling against some particularly aggressive DRM measures. This is where GMG and their website comes in. It is at first, like any other website selling downloadable PC games. Create an account, add in your credit/debit card details, download your selected game, and away you go. However, the site unlike any other on the market, offers its users the option of trading back in their digitally downloaded games when they have finished with them.

So how does this work, how can some give back an existing download on their computer at home for a new download of another game? Well, you're not quite giving back the download itself.

When you purchase any software from GMG’s website you are given an activation code, just like with boxed PC games, and it’s this that you effectively trade back in. All you have to do once you want to trade back in a game, is click on the ‘trade in’ option below the box art on the game page and then that’s it, your game gets traded. Of course, you are given a trade in value for your title beforehand, and if you choose to accept, you are given credit to purchase further games from the GMG website. Your original code gets re-generated into a new one, and is then sold off at a cheaper price, depending of course on its market value.

This means that it is not only possible to trade in your old GMG website purchases for new ones, but also the ability to buy cheaper versions of other games which have been traded in. All of the games are new, there is nothing except for the price that could be considered preowned. In terms of pricing, everything is determined by market value, just like how actual bricks and mortar shops operate. So, the more people that are trying to buy one particular title will send both its trade and purchase prices right up. Whereas if a certain title is being constantly traded in, its purchase price drops accordingly, as does its trade price, just as you’d expect it would.

At the same time, highly popular or rarer titles will maintain there market value over longer periods of time, unlike in some regular retail stores in which some popular titles see both their trade and purchase prices reduced massively over time. GMG’s system should be fairer, with customers through their own buying and selling habits dictating the overall price of certain items. New releases however, are likely to be price protected for a short period, as you would expect.

Of course, for such a system to work securely, away from the hands of pirates whilst satisfying the publishers, there has to be some form of DRM involved. In this case, SecuROM. However, GMG’s implementation of this somewhat hated form of DRM isn’t quite as intrusive as the ones used in previous boxed retail copies of high profile titles. Instead, after installing the newly downloaded game onto your computer it will register itself with GMG’s online servers, verifying its authenticity and thus allowing you to play. This authentication needs to be done via an Internet connection every three days. Although if you are away for long periods of time it is still possible to activate the game again after the three-day period, it’s just that the game won’t work after three days unless you re-activate it.

The system may sound harsh, but looking at the increasing number of titles which require a continuous internet connection, it is a pretty fair compromise, especially if gamers are getting all the benefits of cheaper titles and the ongoing option to trade in old titles. For the PC market, this would actually be the first, as previously hardly any shops would take in PC games with their reliance of activation codes and online registration.

So far, a few companies including PlayLogic, JoWood Productions, Midas and Namco Bandai have signed up to have their games available on the site, and apparently GMG is in talks with the likes of Rockstar, THQ and Sega to see if they are interested in at least trying out the service.

If the security measures are good, and the overall service is popular enough, then I suspect many more will come on board, as there is very strong evidence to suggest that people who trade in more games, also buy a lot more games as a result. This seems to be the view held at GMG as well, so they are very positive that their service will offer gamers a new way to empower themselves by trading and buying new titles online. Certainly, the aim is to make things fairer for both the publishers and the gamers.

GMG’s service will be launching here in the UK first with a planned roll out into many other territories, starting with the United States in a few months time. Currently gamers anywhere in the world can use the site, however the prices and currency are all localised for users in the United Kingdom. Later on when you visit the site from other territories other than the UK, a specifically localised version will instead appear with the correct pricing and currency for that particular territory.

Other than having an eventual worldwide presence and new release game sales, GMG also are hopeful that their service will attract titles that have failed to garner a publishing deal, and that might have otherwise been left upon the scrap heap. Instead they hope that developers will release their gamers independently on the service fee of needing any kind of publishing deal. The likelihood of which, means that there is a high probability that titles featuring original ideas, or simply independent IP, will eventually appear on the site, giving gamers both choice and variety on the site.

Overall, GMG’s revolutionary service could well be the way forward for traditional retail outlets to maximise trade-ins and preowned software sales, whilst at the same time satisfying large publishers and developers, in addition to the smaller ones who struggle to break even, let alone make a solid profit these days. I imagine that traditional retail will be looking at how successful GMG’s service is, both in terms of profits and market penetration, before perhaps adopting a similar system further on down the line.

If the service is successful, then there is no reason why bricks and mortar retailers also couldn’t start giving back a percentage of profits made from their sales of preowned games. After all, in the long run it would benefit the entire industry, from the developers and publishers, to the gamers, and even the retailers themselves.

Of course, it has to be done at the right price, and it has to be fair on the consumer, fairer than the current retail system in which you pay near £40 for a preowned title, only to be given around half that when you trade it in days later. Personally, I think it’s pretty obvious that this change isn’t going to happen overnight, but a change is necessary, especially for the industry to continue to thrive and push forward the boundaries of interactive entertainment.

GreenManGaming’s site (greenmangaming.com) opened to the public earlier this week. We definitely suggest that you pop along and check it out, as it could well be the future in the making.

Tech Analysis: Halo Reach Beta

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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