Snot a problem – Earthworm Jim Returns!

Earthworm Jim was at one point one of my favourite MegaDrive games, with the original title and its sequel regularly being plunged into the cartridge slot. I still remember renting the first one and sighing with disappointment as I initially didn’t really like the game all that much. It was hard, unusual, and not quite how I expected it to be. After composing myself and trying again, I found myself opening up to Jim’s brand of humour and chaotic nonsense, along with finding some of the most inspired gameplay design I had encountered outside of Treasure’s much loved titles.

So it’s no surprise that a smile came over my face when I discovered that not only was a remake of original Jim game on the cards, but that there was also a trailer now available for it too. Groovy!


The remake, unsurprisingly called Earthworm Jim HD, contains both the original single-player game you remember, but also a brand new four-player co-op mode as well. New levels have also been added to the core gameplay experience, which include bizarre new enemies such as a distinctive keyboard-playing cat - attacking you with musical notes no less - and a granny jet packing herself across the stage like James Bond in Thunderball. Naturally this goes down well with a game sporting a varied cast of off-the-wall characters, ranging from a goldfish with delusions of world domination to an evilly posh cat and a crow in a yellow space suit.



As you can see in the trailer, rather than going down the 2.5D textured polygons route developers Gameloft have instead seen fit to be rendering the title in lovely hand drawn, high definition 2D. The look is not too dissimilar from Capcom’s Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix, in which the game’s visuals appear to consist of flash type 2D graphics rather than the highly detailed pixel art to be found in SNKPlaymore’s King Of Fighters XII.


So far it does look pretty cool, though visually it is missing plenty of the little per-pixel details of the 16bit games, which is a shame. Plus something seems to be off with the sound. The effects are different, rather strange, and not like they were in the original game.

Either way, it is nice to see someone bring the character back to live in a form mildly respectful to its original source material. Gotta be better than some uninspired 3D sequel right? And hopefully, even if the visual charm isn’t quite there, that the gameplay will be back on fine form as we remember it to be. Certainly not like those awful GBA ports released a good few years back.

Earthworm Jim HD will be released for Xbox Live Arcade on 9th June and for PlayStation Network and WiiWare on 9th July. So one month later then.

Sony Announce PS3 3D Plans For Japan

Earlier on in the year we reported that Sony was planning to role out 3D game support for the PS3 sometime in June to coincide with the launch of their first 3D enabled HDTV. The firmware to enable 3D support for the PS3 console itself was deployed a few weeks back, but now gamers will actually have the software to finally take advantage of that, assuming of course you have a 3D compatible HDTV set.


On June 10 Japanese gamers will get their first taste of 3D gaming as Sony plans to release updates for certain PSN titles. Making the list we have: Super Stardust HD, WipeOut HD, and Pain. Both WipeOut and Stardust will receive free updates to enable the use of 3D, whilst Pain on the other hand will require users to shell out 300 yen (about $3 ish) for the privilege.

For those who don’t own any of the above titles, Sony are also going to be releasing a 3D enabled demo of MotorStorm Pacific Rift, which will be available on June 10 but only to purchasers of a shiny new Bravia 3D LCD screen. Individuals who purchase one of Sony’s 3D HDTV’s will receive a code allowing them to not only get a hold of this MotorStorm demo exclusively, but also free downloads to all of the PSN compatible 3D games available from that day.

No announcements were made as to what Sony have planned for Europe or North America, but we think that talk of those territories can’t be far away.

With E3 fast approaching there is no doubt Sony are going to be pushing hard on the 3D front. Even if the format remains an expensive niche for the first few years, it definitely looks like it could be one of the next standards in gaming - especially for the next generation - and it’s with this that Sony looks to stamp their feet firmly into the ground with.

Tech Analysis: Split Second (360 vs PS3)

Earlier on today we posted up our technical analysis of BlackRock Studio’s Split Second. However it was brought to our attention that there was a mistake in our original article, which stated that the PS3 version of the game didn’t have any kind of anti-aliasing, when it did in fact have 2xMSAA just like the 360 version. Our reasoning behind this was the PS3 version's constant jagged lines made it look awfully like there was no AA. Although in hindsight the high contrast nature the game is actually the cause of the issue, creating problems for the MSAA in generating good enough samples for the anti-aliasing to work.

We did pick up on this in our original article (highlighted in bold)with regards to the 360 game, and it is still featured below in our updated version, but failed to spot this as the cause in the PS3 version. Despite this, in light of the above information, it doesn't change our initial feeling towards either version in any way.

We appologise for any mistakes and do try our best to maintain absolute accuracy in all the content we provide. However we are only human, and even the best of us can at times make the occasional error. What follows below is our updated and re-published article.

When BlackRock Studios first unleashed the critically praised pure onto consoles last year, it was a shining example of just how to approach multi-platform development. Highly optimised for both platforms strengths and weaknesses, it was largely identical, with only subtle differences between them, barely noticeable unless both versions were running side by side.

For Split Second the fine team at BlackRock seem to have done an almost equally stellar job, with the concessions made for each platform being remarkably low, and the differences again being hardly visible in motion, apart from perhaps the PS3 version's seemingly less successful use of AA and the 360's slightly blurred image.

Surprisingly, it is the PS3 that appears initially to get the arguably superior version this time around, on paper at least. Further inspection shows however, that things might not be so clear-cut. Whilst the PS3 build is in fact the sharpest, it also has some dialled back post processing effects and what appears to be only very little in the way of jaggies reduction through the use of MSAA.

In a game like Split Second - where high contrasting edges are everywhere - the 360’s use of AA isn’t as perfect as we’d like it to be either, with jaggies regularly appearing at certain points, although not to the extent of the PS3 version. But it’s eradication of more jagged lines does make a difference during gameplay, though not enough to make any version an initially clear winner.

So that’s the gist of it. Now, lets delve into those all-important details as we take a closer look at both versions of the game.


In terms of rendering resolution it’s the PS3 build that takes the lead with its crisp and clear 720p display. It’s a full 1280x720 on the Sony platform, and 1280x672 for the 360 game. Both seem to use the standard issue 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) that is commonplace in most titles on MS’s machine, although its inclusion in the PS3 build doesn’t do much to reduce aliasing.

From the screenshots on this page it’s pretty clear that the PS3 build is shaper overall than the 360 one. However the reason behind this isn’t quite so straightforward as you might think. Obviously the 360 build’s lower 672 resolution does have an impact on how sharp the final image will be, although as we’ve seen before with Splinter Cell and to a much lesser extent with Alan Wake, that an upscaled image can still look rather clean and artifact free. And with BlackRock’s latest that certainly seems to be the case, being pretty sharp in motion.

The upscaling appears to be rather good, and only a small amount of softness seems to come from this process. It can be pretty hard to tell though, as the game features heavy usage of a screen blurring post process effect which distorts the entire image. Thankfully we can still see that regardless of post processing, that the overall composition of the image is still superior in terms of raw sharpness in the PS3 build.

Unfortunately this raw sharpness coupled with what looks like no anti-aliasing in motion - due to the lack of good samples being available to the MSAA, largely because of the game featuring constantly high contrasting edges throughout - simply heightens the game’s already visible jagged lines, with the PS3 version crawling in shimmering edges. The 360 on the other hand, handles this a little better with it’s combined use of MSAA, greater amount of post processing, and from the extra blur added by the upscaling process, in which the overall result is a smoother final image despite the small vertical upscale taking place.

This is particularly noticeable during gameplay as the PS3 build’s constant edge shimmering make it just a little bit harder to read the road up ahead when things get chaotic. By contrast, the cleaner 360 game allows you to see small details coming up ahead without the screen crawling in as many aliasing atifacts, though they are a little blurrier than on the PS3.

Despite this issue both versions are equally playable, and at times the 360 version is no stranger to these effects, though they manifest themselves less frequently which is definitely a plus.


What about the game in motion then? Well, both versions run at thirty frames per-second (30fps) for the most part, with both slowing down on occasion in certain situations – usually when powersliding around a corner whilst all hell is breaking loose. Like with Pure both versions are remarkably similar and very solid at maintaining their framerates. Both seem to be v-synced, and suffer from only minor frame drops.

The 360 build seems keep up with the demands of the action slightly better than the PS3 one, although the difference is tiny with it rarely dipping below the intended 30fps target, and only occasionally loosing the odd frame to screen tearing. PS3 owners get a version that is mostly identical with very few drops in framerate - just a little more than the 360 - but this barely impacts in any meaningful way during gameplay, still providing a solidly smooth experience for the vast majority of the time.

Whilst both versions seem to be v-synced, I did notice that the PS3 game would tear the occasional frame more often in stressful situations compared to the 360 one, although this difference is very hard to detect by eye, requiring you to be looking out for it. The small amount of screen tear on ether version is only visible for a fraction of a second, and only appears right at the top of the screen, so it isn’t particularly noticeable at all.

In the end both versions perform excellently, with each one rarely dropping framerate for more than a second or so, and the tearing that arises in either build is barely worth mentioning. BlackRock have basically achieved parity across both platforms with any differences being purely un-intrusive and not detrimental to the game in any way.


Texture filtering and detail is like for like across both platforms, as is the modelling and general shader effects. Most alpha effects and particles seem to be rendered in the same resolution on both platforms, with the PS3 getting an equally high-end experience with regards to the games often impressive visuals – especially the lighting which looks incredible when in full bloom. Some smoke and flame effects look slightly lower on PS3, but it's hard to notice when playing the game.

Post processing is another matter, in which it is clear that the effect has been dialled back slightly on the PS3 game. You can see this in the shot below where the 360 game features what looks like a slightly stronger blur-styled effect over the PS3 one.

It’s this effect in tandem with the lower 672 resolution, that gives the 360 build a clear loss in sharpness, but also a greater reduction in jaggies than what 2xMSAA would usually provide. However, there is also a strong case for the PS3 build and the sharper overall display it provides, although the differences are less apparent in motion than they are in still screens.


Overall, BlackRock have done a mostly excellent job in maintaining platform parity to the point where there really isn’t all that much in it.

The PS3 definitely benefits from having a slightly higher vertical resolution and the shaper display it provides. From a raw technical perspective is arguably superior, but then again, the 360 version features less jagged lines due to both the use of anti-aliasing combined with the slightly greater post processing effects over the PS3. The upscaled nature of the game may also help in this regard, with the slight blur adding more AA in areas in which the MSAA would usually fail.

Either way both versions perform smoothly with very little in the way of framerate drops or troublesome screen tear, and the differences in screen composition when the game is in motion are not as apparent as they are in still screens. Certainly, I'd say that most people will be satisfied whichever version they decide to go for.

It’s tit for tat, and given the choice I would probably take the 360 game with its reduced amount of jagged edges, along with a controller that is more suited to racing games if I absolutely had to pick - although I do prefer the sharpness of the PS3 version, and the higher resolution overall.

So in conclusion, Split Second is solid on both systems with your choice most likely coming down to which controller you prefer using, or which online network all your friends will be playing on. BlackRock’s latest is a good example of balanced multi-platform development, and where the differences between each version isn’t at all detrimental to the experience.

Tech Analysis: Red Dead Redemption (360 vs PS3)

There’s no doubt that Rockstar are onto another success story with Red Dead Redemption. Piece together the same kind of open worldliness as in Grand Theft Auto IV, along with some traditionally styled old west action, and you have another finely crafted and life-consuming experience. If there were ever a game to make your Clint Eastwood fantasies come true, then RDR would be it.

The underlying engine behind the game is based on the same impressive tech that powered 2008’s GTA IV, expanded upon, tweaked and refined, perhaps pushing the most it can get out of the current consoles. Well, without a complete rewrite that is. And like with the GTA IV conversion, there are many similarities between the two games. Everything from the rendering resolution and the use of anti-aliasing can be plucked right out of Rockstar’s last multiplatform title, so it’s no surprise that some of what you’ll be hearing today is at least vaguely familiar.

Starting off, as always with the rendering resolution. RDR is presented in 720p (1280x720) on the Xbox 360 using 2xMSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing), whilst on PS3 is rendered in a slightly lesser 1152x640 and using the alternative QAA (quincunx anti-aliasing).

Straight away you can see that Red Dead is exactly the same as GTAIV in this regard, with the 360 benefiting from decent edge smoothing, and the PS3 having to make do with the blurrier quincunx solution. This choice appears a little odd, as both 2xMSAA and the standard QAA take up roughly the same amount of memory and processing requirements. So why use the poorer QAA option in the first place?



Well, the most obvious explanation is that the QAA in theory delivers more edge smoothing for the same memory cost as the conventional MSAA, so thus there should be less in the way of jagged edges. However the consequence is that QAA not only smoothens polygon edges, but also blurs general pixel details in the entire scene. So textures along with geometry become blurred, creating a softer overall image. Bizarrely the use of this QAA seems to be selective, with some edges getting clear levels of jaggies reduction, and others without.

Unlike in GTAIV, in which the blur effect actually added an ambience and a layer of atmosphere to the proceedings, in Red Dead it does nothing of the sort. The gritty environments of GTA made the QAA look fit in well with the game world, and the 360’s dithered textures made the loss of sharpness a worthy compromise on PS3. However RDR on 360 doesn’t really suffer from any dithering textures. Or rather, that the effect has been greatly reduced, and the bright and dusty open world nature of the game benefits from a sharper image, meaning that the blur effect simply heightens the differences between the two versions.

The 360 build however, isn’t free from criticism either. The high contrasting edges between the buildings with the bright blue sky often leads to noticeable shimmering, sometimes as bad as seen in the PS3 build. Most of the time these jaggies are in fact smoother than the ones seen on its PS3 counterpart but shimmer in the same way.

Essentially MSAA works by taking samples from two adjacent pixels, and then combines those samples with the final image to form an anti-aliased one. With edges in high contrast areas, there isn’t enough information to create decent samples to act as in betweens where the two pixels meet, thus the image receives either no AA altogether, or a significantly reduced amount.



In terms of texture detail and filtering, both versions are identical. Texture resolution seems to be the same on either platform with the lower 640p resolution of the PS3 game resulting in some additional blurring of the visible detail. This is caused by both the upscaled nature of the framebuffer, and the use of QAA, in which we’ve already discussed the technique’s unwanted side effects.

Anisotropic filtering is evident in the screenshots below, as is the blurred nature of the PS3 version’s textures, and general screen composition. The levels of AF don’t appear to be much higher than what is usually available with the older trilinear method of filtering. So we are looking at perhaps 4x AF for Red Read on both platforms.



One area of the game that has been noticeably paired back on the PS3, is the heavy use of alpha-based foliage. This seems to be the main reason for the lower resolution of the PS3 version and it’s use of a more aggressive LOD (level of detail) system in certain scenarios.

As we’ve discussed before at IQGamer, the use of alpha heavy transparency effects for objects like hair and foliage use up a huge amount of bandwidth, a commodity which is particularly limited in home consoles, but especially on the PS3 with its lack of high speed EDRAM. It’s this bandwidth advantage which allows the 360 to not only render more foliage on screen, but also render it at a higher resolution as well.

These two shots show exactly how much of the foliage has been cut back on the PS3 game. Notice how it is mostly only the smaller plants and grasses that have been culled, which actually has less of an impact during play than you might expect. However it’s also pretty clear that the environments in the 360 version look visibly more dense as a result of having loads more minor pieces of foliage.

Some major parts of the foliage have also been cut on PS3 too. When this happens, the Sony version of RDR looks much blander as a result, taking away some of that ‘living world’ look that the game at times possesses.



Whilst both versions use A2C (alpha-to-coverage) for the surrounding foliage - a memory saving technique for rendering half resolution transparencies in an interlaced type manner - the 360 version clearly benefits from better alpha blending through the use of A2C in conjunction with 2xMSAA.

On the other hand, the PS3’s use of QAA and low-resolution foliage makes for a poorer blend overall, and some unsightly shimmering artifacts which don’t look too great with the blurred nature of the framebuffer.

As regular readers of this blog might know, A2C also creates a screen door effect on all transparencies and textures that use it. MSAA is used to blend away this unwanted effect, and the more AA used, and the higher the resolution of the A2C textures, the better the overall result will be. For RDR the PS3 game and its use of low-res foliage and QAA simply makes the screen door effect stand out far more than it does on the 360. By contrast, it’s barely noticeable in motion in the 360 build.



Along with a reduced foliage count, the PS3 game appears to feature a more aggressive LOD system as well. It’s not so much the issue of objects being cut back on the PS3 build, but also of objects popping into view later than in the 360 one. Geometry changes, shadow pop, and object pop in are all more noticeable on the PS3. Although these do occur on 360, but to a far lesser extent.

Below you can see the differences between the two versions. Notice how the water effects and shadowing have been cut back on the PS3, with entire shadows missing altogether. Detail in the distance has been deduced, with buildings featuring simpler levels of geometry, and with some objects being completely omitted from the scene.

The PS3 version also suffers from some other LOD issues as well. In towns and small outposts, as you approach the buildings the shadows pop in a lot later in the PS3 build compared to the 360. They appear more erratically on the PS3, whereas on 360 they appear smoothly on screen from further into the distance, and in a far more succinct manner.

The reason why, on occasion, that so much detail has been reduced in the PS3 build, is due partially to the game’s lower resolution in combination with the blur inducing QAA, and what appears to be a more forceful LOD system.

Either way, the Sony game suffers far more from LOD issues and the overall more aggressive LOD system in place for RDR. Unlike in GTAIV, the whole game has been designed around sprawling vistas, and wondrous views into the far distance. So its no surprise that some large compromises had to be made for the PS3 build, especially where trying to keep a more consistant frame rate is concerned.



Red Dead Redemption aims to keep a steady 30 frames per-second framerate at all times, but both versions deal with doing this a little differently. Like with many multi-platform titles, the PS3 build is focused on eliminating screen tear at the expense of maximum smoothness, being v-synced that is, and the framerate also capped at 30fps maximum to ensure it never goes above this level.

The 360 build on the other hand is more concerned with maintaining as smoothest framerate as possible. And to that end the framerate hasn’t been capped at all, with the game running between 40 to 50fps in certain scenarios. This mainly happens when on foot, and in enclosed locations without much in the way of foliage and environment detail.

Most noticeably is the fact that the 360 game isn’t v-synced, or v-locked at all, meaning that it is prone to screen tearing in stressful situations or fast camera pans. The tearing only ever appears at the top of the screen, and stops halfway across the screen, almost like the game has caught up with the problem.

By contrast the PS3 game never tears any frames at all, remaining completely free of the problem regardless of what is happening on screen. However, it does drop framerate badly in heavy load situations, far more than the 360 game. When this happens, the screen can crawl with jagged edges and shimmering foliage in areas in which the QAA isn’t applied, and where the A2C blend fails to work successfully.

Both versions do massively drop their framerate in heavy load situations, but it’s the PS3 one that seems to be more greatly affected by such dips in performance.

So it is safe to say that performance wise the 360 version has the edge, and that the screen tearing present on that version of the game isn’t much of an issue, being barely noticeable for much of the time. By contrast, the PS3 build features a small drop in IQ over the already worse 640p resolution and use of QAA whenever the framerate drops. That said, neither version maintains the target 30fps for long, with constant dips below all throughout the game.



Moving on, we can see that in terms of lighting and shading there are differences in both versions of the game. For the most part they are both largely identical, but in certain circumstances the PS3 build actually features more light reflections and extra shadows cast in indoor areas, and the 360 build gets self-shadowing on all characters, which are absent for some on PS3.

The lighting differences don’t always seem to be technical achievements, but rather technical anomalies, in which it seems more likely that there is a rendering error on the 360 build compared to the PS3 one. Although we cannot be sure as to why this is happening without knowing the ins and outs of how Rockstar’s engine renders its shadows and lighting in detail.

In the screenshots below you can see how the PS3 version is casting a light source from outside and through the window, into the scene indoors. Whereas on 360 it is clear that the only light source affecting the characters is the one coming from the wall-mounted lamp.

The light source that is cast through the doors and windows on the PS3 game also casts shadows from the characters and onto the grown. Something that is also absent from the 360 build, which again only gets shadows from indoor lighting.

Thankfully these scenes are few and far in between as most of the game is set outside, in which there are only a few minor cloud shadow oddities in the 360 build. However it does mean that in indoor scenes the PS3 clearly demonstrates better use of lighting, whether that be due to an error or otherwise.



The 360 build however, does have the benefit of having both sharper and higher quality shadows for character and environmental objects. All characters on 360 have the benefits of using self-shadowing – shadows that are cast upon characters by themselves - which gives them an extra depth and three-dimensional look.

On PS3 characters generally look flatter than their 360 counterparts, with some lacking self-shadowing altogether, and others simply having the effect paired back over the 360 build.

It’s pretty obvious in the screenshots below how superior the shadowing can be in the 360 game. Notice how much extra in the way of depth the self-shadows can add over environment shadowing and lighting.



In the end, despite the differences we can still see that what Rockstar’s engine has achieved on both platforms is pretty impressive, with it’s ability to render miles of detailed scenery and still keep up a decent framerate outside of strenuous encounters. Red Dead Redemption may not be artistically pleasing to everyone, but is still a mean technical achievement. It is however, one which favours the strengths of Microsoft’s console, with the 360’s superior vertex processing capabilities and greater memory bandwidth.

From what we’ve uncovered today, it’s pretty clear that the 360 demonstrates superior technical prowess when it comes to handling the wide and open-world nature of Red Dead Redemption. Unlike in GTAIV, a far-reaching field of view is absolutely required in order for a game like RDR to accurately represent the time and period in which it’s set. And it’s also exactly the type of engine that is ill suited to PS3’s lack of bandwidth and vertex shader power.

It comes as no surprise then, to see that without large buildings and natural structures hiding far off areas, that Rockstar had little option but to noticeably cut back on the sheer amount of geometry present in the PS3 game. After all, you can’t start culling much in the way of unseen polygons when the game requires most of this detail to visible from far into the distance. Instead the only thing left to do is cut away at the foliage, sap away some of the resolution and try to make the best of what you’ve got left.

However most of these differences aren’t all that visible unless you’ve seen one version, and then moved on to playing the other. Someone whose only ever seen the PS3 game is more than likely not to notice most of the issues we’ve highlighted in our tech analysis, and will still enjoy the many superb experiences Red Dead has to offer. Perhaps the only thing that IS noticeable is the blurred nature of the game owning to the use of QAA. In that respect it is the game’s largest issue, and the one which takes away the most from the experience.

In conclusion, our recommendation rests with the 360 version. There’s simply no doubt that it’s use of a higher resolution, proper MSAA, better LOD detail, better shadowing system, plus more stable overall performance makes it the better of the two. This isn’t a case of GTAIV, in which the slightly blurred look adds to the visual style of the game world, but rather that every part of RDR benefits from having a generally cleaner and clearer look about it, with more detail and a smoother framerate all gelling it together.

However, that said there’s no reason for people with access to only a PS3 not to pick up Rockstar’s latest. As we’ve stated above, that unless you’ve seen the two versions running you’ll unlikely to notice most of the differences, and the game itself is the same on both platforms, being an utterly absorbing experience at times, and one of the best open world games to date.

Thanks to MazingerDUDE for the majority of our comparison screenshots, and as always, to Quaz51 for his exemplary pixel counting skills.

Review: Split Second (PS3)

Have you ever wanted to be speeding down a central city block as other cars are being flipped over? As explosions erupt from the sides of buildings, with the spray of glass blasted all over the street? As superstructures collapse, and dust and debris are flung everywhere in a sea of carnage? All the while, your hearty determination and exemplary grip of the road sends you careering into first place. Rivals burned, fame guaranteed, and all in a days work in the name of late night entertainment.

That right there is Split Second in a nutshell. BlackRock’s latest racing endeavour is more of a battleground of high-powered and fast-moving machinery, all dolled up in the form of a brutally entertaining TV show. Contestants aren’t just expected to race – is this actually possible? – But to use every single method available to them in order to take down their opponents and secure victory. The more chaos, the more points and popularity that ensues, and with that, the game expects you to go all out to secure that coveted No.1 spot.

This mixture of arcade racing and carefully orchestrated destruction perfectly embodies just what Split Second is about; having as much crazy fun in a car a possible, whilst still trying to retain some grounding in reality. The road becomes a blast-filled battleground, in which getting to first place is only half the challenge. Keeping it on the other hand, is altogether different matter. It’s in these heated contests of power drifting around corners and detonating explosives that BlackRock’s latest really comes alive, delivering a solidly fun, but frequently flawed experience.


The game is basically presented like a fictional TV show. Each of the courses are elaborate sets filled with destructible scenery such as buildings planes, industrial equipment etc. Set across 12 episodes, which act almost like the cups in Mario Kart or the events in Burnout, there are four races initially available, with one being the end of show ‘elite race’. Your goal is to drive and battle your way through various challenges earning a number of points per race – depending on position – in a bid to get faster cars, and thus to complete more challenges and finally unlock the finishing ‘elite race’. This special race acts as the game’s episode finally, and victory here decides on whether you move on to the next show of the season.

A number of different challenges are available to you before you reach the final race. These give you a choice as to what types of events you want to do, and its possible to earn the required number of points to unlock the final race without placing first in all of the events. Effectively, if you get stuck trying to complete for example the ‘eliminator’ event, then you can simply skip over it and move onto one in which you might be more comfortable with. This can be done throughout Split Second’s career mode, although later on in the game the number of points required to progress rapidly increases, and so to does your need to actually be competitive in all the types of event.


Unlike other driving games, racing in its purest form, won’t get you anywhere in Split Second. Instead your aim is to build up the games ‘powerplay meter’ by either drifting around corners, slipstreaming behind other cars, or grabbing some air, before triggering destructive events at certain points around the track. These ‘powerplays’ are designed to takedown your opponents, and can be activated when each section of your meter is full, and when a small icon appears over the other racers.

Some of theses are incredible to watch. At one point I was jostling for 3rd place right after drifting around a corner, only then to see the road collapse before my very eyes in an explosion of smoke particles and debris. The car in front flipped over and burst into flames as it hit the deck, while I went flying off the end of the track and into the battle for first place. At other times, you’ll be confronted with airplanes taking off right in the centre of the course, buildings falling down, random explosions, and a constant barrage of chaos - both a curse and a blessing.

Using the ‘powerplays’ actually requires great skill to be used as consistently effective takedowns, whilst also staying out of harms way. Seeing as your opponents also trigger these very same events, you can often be on the receiving end of one if you’re not careful. And this can happen at any time during the race. In essence the game becomes less about fighting for position, and more about learning the tracks and planning that next ‘powerplay’ strike. The only need for racing it seems, is purely for the purposes of building up ‘that’ meter and staying within reach of the opposition.


At times the overly excessive use of the destructive scenery, and constant bombardment of vehicular carnage feels a little bit too much. Not quite a one trick pony, but it does start to feel really drawn out, and in the end proving maybe too intrusive for its own good. Racing can become overshadowed, with its inclusion merely servicing the overseeing powerplay mechanics.

That said, the scenes of chaos and the edge of your seat action is hard to put down, with that ‘one more go’ feeling constantly tugging at your exhaust pipe. This is especially true in heated races in which you’ve only narrowly missed out on first place, and are boiling up for a spot of revenge.

The racing itself, during points in which it’s possible, is pretty good for the most part. Although the handling is quite loose and floaty, constantly veering between having too much over steer, and being overly slidey. It’s a strange driving mechanic, I’ll give you that. And the game’s arcade sensibilities come out through and through, feeling almost like a combination of say PGR and Burnout, and maybe just little OutRun.


Unfortunately, like with most arcade racers, a fluid sixty frames per-second is really required for such a handling model to shine, and in Split Second the game fails to do so, being serviceably fun, albeit flawed. Of course when the screen is being filled with large clouds of smoke, collapsing buildings, large explosive scenery, bleached out and intensely bright HDR lighting, it’s no surprise that the magical 60fps isn’t obtainable.

At times Split Second looks awesome, and with so much going on it never misses a beat, maintaining a solid 30fps throughout with only the occasional screen tear for company. However, when the game’s two distinct elements come together perfectly, the framerate and handling seem inconsequential, and the real fun aspect begins to shine through. Sadly moments like these are ether rare, or rather, broken up by the split racing and ‘powerplay’ aspects of the package.


That said Split Second is pretty fun and rewarding to play at times, although perhaps missing some of the succinct polish that made Pure so great. Evidence of BlackRock’s unique style and personality are plastered all over the game, with everything from the presentation and bleached coloured lighting following on from the art choices made in their last title. The radical ‘powerplay’ mechanic is an entertaining sight to behold and puts a new spin on arcade racers like Burnout Revenge, or action driving titles like Stuntman, favouring combat over sheer driving ability.

In the end Split Second succeeds in entertaining, if only for a while. Scratch the surface and you’ll find a highly playable racing game, simply let down by a little too much emphasis on the explosions and action, and not enough on the driving. What we have here, is a game in which the main mechanic sits somewhere between a bombastic spectacular and unusual curiosity, providing solidly differently take on the traditional arcade racer, but which lacks the true greatness compared to the genre’s most defining titles.

VERDICT: 7/10

Gran Turismo 5 To Feature 3D, Move Support?

This week more rumours have surfaced as to the increasing delays surrounding Polyphony Digital’s flagship driving game. According to the trade publication MCV, sources close to Sony are saying that the latest instalment in the GT franchise, due for release sometime this fall in the US and in Europe, will support both 3D visuals and inclusion of PlayStation Move control options.

The source goes on to state that the numerous delays that have been constantly pushing back the game, is due to the developers needing extra time in order to properly include these two new features.


Previously, Sony, when displaying the PS3’s upcoming 3D enabled capabilities, have nearly always showcased Gran Turismo 5 to demonstrate the depth effect 3D provides in more realistic circumstances. It is a known issue that rendering games in 3D takes considerably more processing power than to render the same scene in 2D, as most objects essentially need to be rendered twice before the two are combined to form a final 3D image. Usually, the resolution or framerate takes a cut as a result of this.

In GT5’s case, the game was displayed at 720p and running at 60 frames per-second, something that would require a great degree of optimisation. So it is perfectly believable that a lot of extra work and optimisations would need to be done.

So far Sony have failed to comment, although with previous demos shown off to the press, the 3D part of the rumour is at least likely to be true.

Gran Turismo 5 has been in development since late 2004, and has cost an estimated 65 million dollars to make so far. According to director Kazunori Yamauchi, the game is around 90% complete, and is due for a late summer release in Japan, with the US and Europe hopefully getting the game by the end of the year.

With E3 2010 just around the corner, it is likely more information about the game will be forthcoming from the event.