Editorial: A Taxing Problem

On Tuesday 22 June 2010 George Osbourne and the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition government unveiled their emergency budget, a budget apparently designed to get business moving again, and kick-start the British economy working towards reducing our increasingly high national debt. As part of this plan the budget included both a rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20% (a 2.5% overall rise), and the announcement that tax breaks were no longer on the agenda for the games industry.

This news has seemingly deflated the industry, with retailers worried about the large dent in profits this will have for their business as they struggle to compete on price with supermarkets and chain multiples, and developers left wondering if the British government actually takes their industry seriously.


In the last couple of years much progress has been made between the UK games industry (represented by ELSPA) and the government. This resulted in the acknowledgement that the games industry was perhaps in the position to best regulate itself with regards to age restricted sales, finally making the PEGI (Pan European Games Information) system not only legal (comming into effect later this year), but also replacing the BBFC system used for the last fifteen years or so in rating software. That, and the acceptance that in order for British companies to compete in games development on a worldwide scale that they would need some kind of tax break incentive.

Whilst the budget obviously doesn’t impact on the newly reformed PEGI system, it does however completely discard the industry’s need for some kind of tax break initiative in order to bring in a constant pool of talent, and a firm reason to stay in Britain, rather than let that talent slip through their fingers and into the hands of Canadian or European software houses, thus further shrinking our regressing industry. The government however doesn’t now appear to see this as an issue, or rather it doesn’t think that the games industry ‘needs’ prioritisation - to be thought about outside the realms of every other business.

Just a few months ago the Labour Government was looking into providing some kind of support for the industry, not necessarily tax breaks, but something along those lines in order to help us become major players on the world stage. With the new government, and the budget announcement, the need for industry help has being thrown completely back into it’s face, with Osbourne stating: “We will not go ahead with poorly targeted tax relief for the videogame industry”. A clear sign of either misunderstanding of the industry, or simply the feeling that the government thinks it isn’t important enough to consider.

The result is that more publishers might well up ship and move abroad where it is cheaper to set up a development studio and make games, taking any potential talent with them. Another issue is with what happens to all the potential talent in this country. Will they be nurtured and then cultivated into the next inspiring leaders of software development, or will they simply fade away without proper training, or the right guidance in order to make this happen?

These are just some of the questions the industry is asking, and indeed worried about, something which the government should really be taking stock of given the fact that videogame sales and the industry brings in a lot of money for the British economy as a whole.

Thankfully the changes made to both Corporation Tax, and Capital Gains Tax do present a small beacon of light to British businesses, although the changes in CGT are said to make more unattractive for foreign investors to invest in British business. Any reductions in taxes bestowed upon businesses is likely to help the games industry as much as any other, and in which case the setbacks that have been felt are not the be all and end all of the issue. ELSPA will continue to campaign for greater understanding, and more help for the industry, whilst publishers, as always will take their business elsewhere sending a clear message to the British government as a whole.

Now it’s time for the organisation to once again build bridges with the government and the issue of videogames, perhaps attempting to bring about another chance at understanding our industry and what it means to the economy, and society as a whole. Only then will we see progress being made, and it’s progress that this industry needs to see.

Whatever the outcome, in the meantime it is likely that the UK’s position on the world stage of games development will further decrease, much like it has been doing these past few years. This isn’t something that will benefit our economy, not will it be something which threatens the amount of stellar games that reaxh our shores. It’s just that more of these games will be produced elsewhere, further stagnating our industry growth and creative impact in the future.

The battle on this front is far from over, that’s for sure. But what about the retail sector and the rise in VAT?

This is equally as interesting, mainly because it has so much more of an impact on the everyday consumer, than the closed, behind the scenes workings of the industry. Any changes here are easily going to felt by you and me, everyone that at least purchases videogames from the high street.

In January 2011 the government plans to increase VAT by 2.5%, from the established threshold of 17.5% to 20%. What this means is that for every sale the company will be handing over more of their profits to the taxman rather than being able to re-invest it back into their business, or as it seems with the larger chain retailers, back into executives, and shareholders pockets. Small independent retailers are likely to be hit the hardest with this decision, with RRP’s rarely being stuck to, and a massive price cutting war ensuing on almost every major release.

Most games actually carry an RRP of either £44.99 or £49.99, however, pretty much every chain retailer, games or otherwise sells these titles at either £39.99 or £44.99 reducing their amount of margin in order to compete, but at the same time making it impossible for smaller stores to even break even when selling these games. All the while the consumer thinks that its okay for the price to drop blissfully unaware that development costs are spiralling out of control, and that pretty soon the price of games ‘will’ have to go up, or perhaps the size and cinematic scope will have to drop right back down again.

Either way this particular debate is a minefield of shorts, with valid opinions on both sides, and the retailer usually the one to back down when it comes to the crunch.

So what happens when the VAT rise comes into effect? Well, the most obvious thing is the drop in revenue felt by retailers everywhere. Fewer profits mean a harder business to run, with fewer opportunities for expansion, and less of a reason to focus on the customers needs, instead pushing towards an even harder sales culture. Some may even expand more aggressively into the online sector, one which will largely be unaffected by the rise in VAT. Well, if you’re based in Jersey that is.

There are a few ways this could go. One, the retailer takes the hit keeping retail prices at the current level, ignoring the RRP given to them by the publisher. Two, they could raise the price of games in accordance with the rate of VAT. Though this would mean prising up titles to the nearest pound, rather than the nearest five pounds as historically done over the last twenty years or so. And three, the retailer adheres to the RRP set on games by the publisher, with the consumer seeing a large price hike on most software titles across the board.

The implications will be felt on choosing any of the three options above. If the retailer decides to take the hit by absorbing the additional rise in VAT, the consumer benefits by having similarly priced games, but at the cost of better customer service. With overall profits down shareholders aren’t likely to be happy, and the executives of most chain retailers are likely to demand that they keep their bonuses at the expense of customer or staff satisfaction. At the same time the age old trend of expansion and growth will be much harder to achieve resulting in a far greater push towards the hard sell.

This hard sales nature, constantly expecting the customer to buy add-ons with every purchase, to take ‘that’ warranty even if they don’t really need it, will become far more prevalent as the main driving force behind some businesses. We have already seen this trend manifest strongly with the chain multiples over the last five or six years, with the focus less on good customer service and more on getting unrealistic results every time a sale is made. If stores decide to take the hit on tax, then it seems that this course of action is far the most obvious one, though not really the best, as more and more customers have been turning away from traditional retail and into the online marketplace due to this reason, and of course the reduced prices these sites provide.

Raising the retail price on games instead, perhaps in order to preserve some of those profits, has it’s own set of problems. Namely, the online retailers, in which this 2.5% tax rise has little to no meaning other than more potential sales for them. You see, most large online retailers are based in Jersey, a region of the UK unaffected by our VAT rises and reductions, and this allows them to continuously not only compete on price, but also see them slashed in an attempt to gain valuable sales from traditional bricks and mortar outlets.

The advantage is that any potential high street stores looking for a break could well turn to online in order to achieve it. With lower prices, but also lower taxes to pay, they could still stand to compete against both online and the supermarkets.

You also have to look at how the market has changed over the last fifteen years or so, and how the customer base has changed. If prices are in fact raised, who will be happy enough to continue paying the raised amount? And for how long? If you look at how people shop it is clear that most customers expect games to become cheaper, or rather, they expect the average new release price to be no more than £40, and quite often look for it to be less than that. With this in mind raising the overall price threshold for games in accordance with the tax hike, or maybe to the nearest £5, isn’t such a good idea as many customers will instead take their business online, or to someone who isn’t doing the same.

Ultimately, today’s so-called ‘specialist’ chain retailers have very little to offer customers outside of being a ‘one-stop’ shop for games. They very rarely stock niche, or hardcore titles, and if they do it is always in extremely small numbers. Plus overall service has largely diminished over the last few years. In essence, there’s very little to keep customers coming back into stores, thus making the VAT predicament all the more difficult to deal with.

Indies on the other hand have the toughest decision to make. They largely operate on the low-margin, high-quality service model, in many cases going that extra mile to differentiate themselves from the large multiples. For them keeping prices low is going to be hard, and I can see that many simply won’t be able to compete in this area, meaning it’s down to whether or not the customer thinks the service, and shop itself, is worth them spending the extra £5 or so.

And then you have the large entertainment chain stores, ones that stock everything from music and DVD to videogames and MP3 players. This segment of the retail community is perhaps the toughest of them all, with competition from online stores and supermarkets, to the likes of digital distribution with iTunes and other download services.

Having prices go up is simply not an option, consumers already see both music and films as largely disposable, and videogames are strongly heading that way, if not already. For them I suspect that most titles will stay below the increased VAT price, with the business taking the added hit as a result. Maybe the use of promotions, and worked out deals with suppliers will negate these issues slightly. But then again, everyone will be looking to maximise margins.

Currently, it’s far too early to see how well the retail sector in general will react to this change. I’m guessing that many hours of consumer research, and cleaver marketing will no doubt help to carve out a temporary solution until something more concrete can be worked out. Either way, many are predicting that customers will be lining up to grab a bargain before the tax increase takes place in January next year, with many retailers likely to grabbing every last slice of the pie before the challenge really sets in.

In conclusion, the budget announcement has done no favours for the industry as a whole, creating yet more issues on either side of the fence. On one hand you have a lot of hard work between ELSPA and the old Labour government seemingly, if not partially wasted. And on the other, the whole retail sector if left with yet another ‘price’ problem to deal with. But perhaps it’s not all doom and gloom. Instead businesses in general have had some tax breaks (which will help the games industry), and with regards to the VAT increase, every retailer is in the same boat. Although it has to be said, that videogames and entertainment retail is amongst the toughest in the world, and this increase is hardly going to make it any easier.

Tech Report: The 3D Behind Crysis 2

During E3 Crytek boasted about it’s incredible method of displaying games in 3D with minimal performance hit. Previously many developers have spoken out about how difficult it would be to get high-end fully featured titles running in this format on consoles, sighting performance issues, and especially the limitations caused by having to render every frame twice (one for each eye) for the effect to be possible. However the ambitious developer of the massively anticipated Crysis 2 has managed to get the game up and running with far less impact on performance.

At E3 Crytek demonstrated a version of Crysis 2 running in full stereoscopic 3D, claiming that the effect cost them only an extra 1.5% of processing power over rendering the game in traditional 2D. Mightily impressive you might think, and that was exactly my thoughts after reading about their presentation. How could it be that a resource heavy game like Crysis was running in full 3D – and in 720p for that matter – without the kind of noticeable impact on performance that the likes of Killzone 3 and Motorstorm seem to be suffering from? The answer is in ‘how’ the effect is created compared to those games.


You see, for Crysis 2 the developers are using a cheat of sorts, a method of 2D to 3D conversion, much like the process that goes on behind the scenes in taking an old 2D movie and then processing it in certain ways so it displays in 3D, complete with a reasonable level of natural depth. Although Crytek themselves haven’t shed any light on the process, it is plainly apparent on what options they might be using, and all signs point to a pixel-shift, plus depth buffer approach to creating the 3D effect.

This type of 2D displacement tech is very similar to the ones used in film production, and the process works in much the same way in videogames. The only difference is that you are relying on a mathematical algorithm in order to fill in any gaps left behind the pixel shift, and of course using the Z-buffer for depth information. All work in 2D displacement is done on a pixel level, nothing geometry-wise is processed at all, it is a completely post process effect.

Here's how it works:

Starting off, the Z-buffer gives you the depth information from a single point of view (POV) required to create the 3D scene. After which the overall viewing distance for the eyes is calculated, thus creating an ideal viewing position in which to determine how far away certain objects are from the screen, etc. Next, the pixels are moved from left to right, and vice versa in order to create the images for each eye using the above Z-buffer info and calculated viewing distance.

You now have a rough approximation of two separate frames (one for each) in order for the 3D effect to be displayed. Essentially rendering is done for one viewpoint, and then two different views are created by shifting pixels around left to right, and vice versa. However, you may also have a few holes in the image arising from changes in what is visible on screen from one frame to the next after the left/right pixel shift has occurred.

Like with the post process conversion of 2D film stock into a 3D print, these holes need to be filled in with information that is not longer there. But unlike with that conversion process – in which a post production artist manually creates new details on a frame by frame basis – for videogame rendering it has to be done in real time by a cleverly designed algorithm instead.

This of course creates problems, seeing as it isn’t easy for a mathematical routine to fill in the gaps left behind in the image without some side effects. Just look at how the upscaling process can leave so many unwanted artefacts if not done carefully, and with a high degree of accuracy. The same thing is equally important here, with the developer needing to create something that carefully determines what information has been cut out, and what needs to replace it.

In Crytek’s case, their method of converting a 2D image into a 3D one in real-time is particularly successful, with little in the way of apparent side effects according to the press who have seen it running. The amount of depth perception is said to be lower than the likes of Guerrilla Games’ Killzone 3 – which actually renders individual frames for each eye – although still appearing fairly natural with only a slight hint at that cardboard cut out look which plague most 2D to 3D conversions.


Impressively, Crytek are also using 3D in a way no other developer seem to be doing at the moment. Rather than having images (such as explosions and particles) jump out at you during play, they are instead using the effect to create a natural depth which extends into the television set, acting as an extension of your natural peripheral vision.

So far the 3D tech behind Crysis 2 has certainly impressed, although Crytek it seems are not the only ones to be using it. Sony are also developing a similar process for first and third party usage in order to make 3D a little more achievable on the PS3, negating the heavy performance cost that comes with rendering the effect for real.

With the 3D race now officially on, it will be interesting to see how developers implement the effect into their games, especially with regards to either rendering in proper 3D with individual frames for each eye, or with the 2D displacement tech talked about on this page today.

Crytek has shown that it is possible to convincingly include support for the format without having to completely rewrite their engine in order to include it, whilst Guerrilla Games has also showcased the advantages of actually downgrading image quality in order to create an unparalleled natural depth that can only e achieved by actually rendering in 3D.

What is apparent is that the two different approaches to including 3D in the latest software releases provide clear support for developers on both sides of the coin when it comes to adopting the format.

Editorial: Kinect - The Price Of Admission

The price of any new product is always hotly debated, especially when the item in question is being positioned for consumption by the mass market, the largely mainstream segment of gaming society. This is exactly what has been happening this past week with Microsoft’s Kinect. Ever since the estimated launch price for the US was revealed, people have speculated on how much the device would cost in the UK; how much it should, or would need to sell for in order to be successful, no more so than when ShopTo.net revealed what it believed would be the price for the unit here in the UK.


North American retailers have been pricing the Kinect at $150 for the last couple of weeks, which roughly translates to around £100 in direct conversion, and allowing for other market factors to effect overall cost. At the end of last week UK site ShopTo.net started taking preorders for the device set to cost £129.99 in the UK. Or so they are estimating. Many other retailers have also spoken out on how much they think Kinect will retail for when it hits the UK in November this year. A vast majority believe that anything from £100 to £150 is possible, squarely in the range of Nintendo’s Wii console, and firmly ahead of Sony’s PlayStation Move.

The price then, roughly equates to a direct, or near thereabouts conversion between US and UK, with the overall bracket set to ensure the best return for Microsoft but not the most value for money for consumers. Playstation Move on the other hand, is relatively cheap. It has a confirmed RRP of just £59.99 for both the Move controller and PlayStation Eye camera. The Navigation controller will go on sale separately for £24.99, taking the total cost of getting the complete Move experience to just £84.99, some fifteen pounds less than the £100 entry price so many retailers believe is necessary for the Kinect to have widespread success at launch, outside the standard core Xbox 360 user.

Speak to any retailer, or in turn most market analylists, and they will tell you that a sub-£100 price point is absolutely essential to drive forward sales aimed at the casual market - the Wii’s market. Many in that market won’t already have a 360 console, so in essence Microsoft would need to provide both to the consumer at an almost impulse buy price, something below £200 but confortably above the Wii. Though, for this to happen they need to have the base Kinect unit selling for somewhat lower than the £130 ShopTo.net seem to be suggesting.

£79.99 for the Kinect on its own, or maybe with one bundled set of mini-games is exactly the price tag most retailers in the UK, both on the high street and online want to see. A price tag that appears instantly more affordable to the casual user - something that isn’t going to break the bank, and that will tempt them in on there own accord. Suffice to say, that might not be happening, and might not actually be possible, as various sources have stated that the Kinect actually costs close to $150 dollars to make, meaning that Microsoft will be loosing money on every sale, or at least only just breaking even.

In that sense you can see why the company is being rather coy with UK pricing. Perhaps it is testing the waters, seeing how much interest there is for the device if it was to be priced up at over the £100 mark. And in this regard the low amount of preorders as reported by ShopTo.net seems to show that there is very little.

Of course it may not just be the price putting people off. At E3 most hands-on reports of software for the Kinect was poorly received, plagued by a high amount of lag, and a lack of any real precision when tracking player movements. Now, whilst this is unlikely to matter to the mainstream consumer – who is likely just to see the device and think ‘that looks like fun’ no matter the technical issues – it does create a negative buzz around the unit somewhat, especially when the PlayStation Move has already started to prove its worth in games like Socom, in which the response time and accuracy is said to be incredibly impressive - a substitute for the standard DualShock controller. You then begin to see just how important it is for Microsoft to get the launch price right. Too little, and they loose too much money for it to be viable as a way of propping up 360 sales, and too high, and they’ll fail to attract the mainstream consumer.

And that’s the point. Unlike PlayStation Move Kinect isn’t designed to be some kind of hardcore device that also plays up to the casual market. It IS designed and aimed at precisely that particular market, and in order to meet the needs of that market has to be priced accordingly. The Move can been seen as a premium product as such, tied in with the PlayStation 3 brand but at a fraction of the cost of what ‘premium’ means to most people. Microsoft on the other hand, seem to be aiming Kinect at everyone but at a higher more premium-like price tag, if ShopTo.net have in fact got their estimations right.

So, I think it’s clear that in order to guarantee the success that Microsoft would like it is essential that the price of Kinect stays low, around £100 would just be the clincher, though at £79.99 everyone can be tempted in for a go. And ‘guarantee’ they must, as Nintendo’s Wii can be picked up for as little as £149.99 in most places, and for £169.99 with a game in others. Move also looks very attractive in its £59.99 guise, and especially at around £85 for the whole set.

Microsoft definitely needs to consider these things in addition to their target audience – they don’t appear to have the sometimes fanboyistic nature of the core gamer behind Kinect – and perhaps should meet at some kind of compromise. After all, while the device sounds promising on paper it has failed to back up any of its initial fanfare with any revolutionary, must-have pieces of software, something that the Move is slowly heading towards with the likes of Killzone 3 and Socom.

At the end of the day both companies need to come out flying, and so far neither of them has done anywhere near enough to justify a massively successful, sell-out launch. Pricing aside, the quality of software for both Kinect and PlayStaion Move leaves a lot to be desired. You need more than just a bunch of Wii-too mini-games, or a singularly impressive, hardcore experience in order to make this work. You arguably need a bit of both, coupled with the right price tag to boot. Just look at the Wii as an example, it’s a perfect combination of brilliant marketing, and some solid, but overly sparse, high-quality software.

The price given for Kinect on ShopTo.net is just an estimate, and not the final RRP of the unit. Microsoft have yet to set a final retail price for the device, although most reports strongly place it in the £100-£150 price bracket.

Review: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)

The original Super Mario Galaxy was unquestionably my 2007 game of the year. With it’s magical atmosphere, delightful art styles, stunning graphics, and exemplary level design it was one of the best games to come out of Nintendo since the N64 days, and Super Mario 64 itself. This is made even more impressive as during the GameCube generation, with the exception of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, Nintendo failed to create anything quite as captivating, or as awe-inspiringly beautiful as their N64 masterpiece.

SMG displayed the kind of wondrous personality and gameplay mastery associated with the company for the last twenty years or so, providing all who ventured into its grasp with some of the most refined and downright amazing platforming on any videogame system to date. It was to many, myself included, beyond just being a sequel to one of the best games of all time, firmly stamping its own mark into a genre long since forgotten amongst today’s mainstream gaming crowd.

The use of gravity as a gameplay mechanic, throwing players around from planet to planet; and the use of switching perspectives, 3D to 2D, and back again, brought forward deviously fresh gameplay which had never been seen before. Not quite like this, and all the more refreshing as a result. Huge bosses, unique level designs and challenges, new and old characters, all contributed even more to the experience. And that’s not even mentioning the whimsical nature of the affair, steeped in a lovingly polished goodness of visual beauty and orchestrated audio delights, quite possibly the closest thing to perfection in a long while.


This sequel in many respects is more of the same, partially streamlined to be more accessible, but more hardcore at the same time, without compromising on the style and gameplay foundations which worked so well the last time around. But it’s more than just a rehash of what has gone before, and the concepts established in the first Super Mario Galaxy. It’s an attempt to bringing together something fresh and altogether familiar at the same time.

At first glance SMG2 is undeniably similar to the last game. The intro sequence in particular being a 2D homage to the opening of the original SMG, with Bowser once again invading Princess Peach’s castle and stealing her away from Mario once more, thus yet again introducing us to the use of space travel and the need to collect those delightful golden stars. From this point on, the mechanics are pretty much identical to the last game, and the use of gravity, the combination of traversing across large and tiny planets are all so familiar. The difference is, that this sequel mixes it up far more than seen in the original SMG.

It’s a testament to the minds at Nintendo’s EAD team that they’ve managed to plunge so much originality in what could be seen as a rehashed, homage title of sorts. Calling it a rehash though, simply doesn’t do SMG2 any justice, as the game is brimming with brand new ideas, excitingly tough and imaginative levels, and perhaps the best orchestral score used in a Mario game to date. It is definitely in many ways a homage title though, more so than the last game.


SMG2 also expands upon the gravitational ideas and shifting perspectives introduced to us in the first game, whilst adding practically a new gameplay mechanic almost in every level. Nintendo have taken onboard what worked, and ditched perhaps what didn’t, or rather what did, but just not as well as it could have. At the same time they have also reduced the number of stages which favour Mario 64’s brand of exploration, instead focusing on obstacle course style level layouts. These stages have a definitive beginning, but the end sometimes feels out of place and strangely positioned into what appears to be the most challenging to reach area in the stage, whether it makes sense of not.

Despite this the game still manages to be an awesome experience through and through - just not quite as amazingly perfect as I would have liked - and this is further upheld up by the inclusion of cool new power-ups, and the return of an old friend from Super Mario World. The finely crafted orchestrated sound track, and magical nature of the game also plays a large part in this too, with the usual Nintendo touch being applied without restraint.


The first thing that you’ll notice has changed in SMG2 is the use of a hub world to serve as entry to one of many galaxies to be found in the game. Instead of featuring a large and expansive hub in which to both explore and to act as a gateway to new stages, you now have Starship Mario, and the return of a traditional map system. This new map system is very much like the ones found in both New Super Mario Bros and Super Mario 3. Levels are clearly marked in order along with the amount of stars possible to collect in each one, and the amount required to unlock the next stage. There are also branching pathways which lead to bonus levels or other normal stages.

The map can also be zoomed in and out, to show either individual galaxies, or simply the stages to be found in each one. It is a far more convenient way of displaying all of the game’s levels, which are now easier to find and keep track of, than to have to hunt around for them in the old hub world. Sadly the map system lacks some of the same charm and magical quality compared to SMG1’s ‘observatory’, although Starship Mario certainly does not.

Starship Mario itself is a smaller version of the hub found in the original SMB, complete with hidden areas, and a cool reproduction of one of the last game’s observatories, which acts as a museum of sorts for displaying power-ups found and artefacts uncovered on your journey. The Starship looks like Mario’s face, and you can run all around it, venturing into unlocked rooms and talking to the inhabitants that arrive at certain points throughout the game. Jumping on the pressure pad in front of the steering wheel (yes, a wheel) takes you to the game’s map screen, in which you browse through, and select your levels.


Outside of the new hub world and map system, most of the changes and improvements are contained within the gameplay itself. The biggest addition to SMG2 is the inclusion of Yoshi, who has been missing in action for far to long in a Mario game. He hasn’t changed much from his debut in Super Mario World on the Super NES, keeping both his tongue grabbing and hovering abilities at the forefront of what he’s all about.

Yoshi is only used in certain stages, most of which have a new mechanic, which uses him in different ways from just running around and doing the usual platform jumping. For example, some stages will require you to keep Yoshi fed with fruits enabling him to walk on otherwise invisible platforms. At other times eating a blue coloured fruit will see him puff up like a balloon and enable him to float up in the air to areas out of reach using the standard Mario/Yoshi combination. Likewise, the game will also test your basic tongue-lashing capabilities by having you swing from objects suspended high up in the air before reaching a specific location.


After Yoshi comes the use of brand new power-ups, including Cloud Mario, Rock Mario, and a funky looking drill that Mario can carry above his head (Drill Mario?). These are awesome, especially Rock Mario, which sees the little fellow take the form of a rocky boulder when waggling the Wii Remote, causing him roll around on screen at speed, much like Morpthball Samus in Metroid Prime.

Cloud Mario has the ability to create a few temporary platforms in which to stand on, allowing you to reach previously out of the way areas. Simply by jumping up and then waggling the Wii Remote creates one of three clouds for Mario to stand on. These clouds can be created in jet streams allowing Mario to glide across the sky, or just to gain a little extra height. After using up all three clouds it simply a case of grabbing another power-up to refill your supply, and away you go.

Like with Yoshi levels are all specifically designed to use these abilities, and in many cases new mechanics are presented for the player to learn and master. The range on offer is pretty incredible, with an almost constant barrage of new, or quirky things coming your way, all of which are done extremely well.


If there is one complaint about an otherwise near perfect experience, it’s that a lot of the levels are very linear in nature, and with little exploration to be had. You never really get to ‘know’ the levels like in Mario 64, or even parts of the first SMG. Instead the levels feel like a design homage to the likes of Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels, or Super Mario World, created more in the way of testing your hardcore platforming skills rather than delivering the most intoxicating, and expansive Mario game yet.

However, the challenges set in nearly every world are as imaginative as the last, and a lot of effort has gone into making this one of the most inspired Mario titles yet. It also works beautifully as homage to the old 2D Mario titles, with redone orchestral music, and faithfully styled level designs. Approaching the sequel in this way, rather than putting it on a ten out of ten, revolutionary, and perfectionist pedestal, is perhaps the way to go.

And this is in itself the way that Nintendo views the game – as a hardcore instalment of the series designed for the most experienced, and dedicated Mario fans. In which case the game succeeds with flying colours, earning its Koopa wings, but maybe not in making it the ‘best’ Mario game of all time. Perhaps not quite as sublime as the first SMG either, though that will be debated for years, I’m sure.


Moving forward, there is plenty to do once you’ve finished the game. After getting 120 stars you unlock another 120 green stars to collect, taking the challenge up a notch, and giving you another chance to play through every level once again. Getting stars is only one part of the challenge though. Throughout every level is a hidden comet coin, and picking this up unlocks specific challenges in addition to the main task required to getting a star. So, for example you might have to do a timed run of a specific star challenge, or a race to the end of the stage.

Occasionally I thought that some of the challenges the game has to offer are just a little too frustrating, especially later on when the slightest mistake leads to a lost of life. In these situations it isn’t so much the level design or actual challenge itself that is the problem, but it’s these elements combined with what appears to be occasionally restrictive camera placement that impacts on the overall polished nature of the experience. It’s nothing overly bad, or even enough to tarnish the delights that Nintendo have managed to cram in here, but it does in my opinion make it less of an overall exemplary experience compared to the first game.

So, you could say that while this sequel does much to improve on the original, it doesn’t quite beat it outright, at best matching the original’s brilliance, and at worst not quite hitting the same highs. Either way, however you slice it, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is still one of the best games to be released in the last ten years or so, and well worth picking up, essentially so, even if it’s not as awe-inspiringly fantastical as SMG was.


Overall SMG2 does so much right. The inclusion of new characters and power-ups are suitably inspired as they are superb, as is the streamlined map system and the extra challenges that keep you going after finishing the game, not to mention the beautiful visuals on offer – Nintendo have really pushed the Wii in this regard, shiny and beautifully lit graphics all at a lavish 60fps. That said, this sequel isn’t quite as groundbreaking as the first game, and not quite as finely balanced either. However, you do have to appreciate the fact that Nintendo very rarely makes a Mario sequel, and in this case it’s one of the best they’ve ever made, minor issues aside.

Perhaps, at the end of the day that’s all that matters, because whilst Super Mario Galaxy 2 might not be as revolutionary as the first, it’s still full of imagination, atmosphere, and some of the most impressively creative level designs to date. Sure it can be frustrating at times, and the reduction in larger level exploration is mildly disappointing. But by the same token it is complete celebration of what gaming used to be about, not what it is about now, and with this in mind it is an undeniable success.

VERDICT: 9/10

Tech Analysis: Crackdown 2 Demo

Most people picked up Crackdown not for the actual game itself (although there was interest in it) but for the upcoming Halo 3 beta, in which access would be granted directly from within the game's menu screen. On top of that they would find a highly enjoyable, and surprisingly different take on the free roaming, open world genre.

Crackdown wasn’t simply a ‘me too’ Grand Theft Auto type experience, but something altogether removed from Rockstar’s world of sandbox brilliance. Highly stylised, and bringing a cartoon vibe to the genre, it delivered flashy, superhero-turned-cop themed action to gamers in a way that completely embodied the spirit of GTA, but without the grime.

Crackdown 2 then has been born out of love for the original game, with the people at Ruffian Games committed to bringing gamers not only more of the same, but also a completely improved version of the game as a whole, with reworked graphics, larger, more intense gameplay segments, and expansion of the original’s much loved online multiplayer mode.

Initially, this sequel looks, and feels very much like the original. The cartoon-esque feel running throughout the game is back in full force, along with the cell shaded visuals which create that effect - those heavy black lines clearly defining characters from their environments – and a slight change to a more gritty visual style bringing about more naturality to the image, rather than the original’s full-blown, pastel-coloured and intensely lit environments.

Compared to the first game Crackdown 2 is grittier looking, with more realistic lighting which is distinctly controlled, and not simply blasted out on full like in the first game. The result, a slightly darker looking game with greater image balance making things more comfortable to look at, whilst also depicting the rundown nature of the city since events of the original Crackdown.


The framerate runs at a mostly solid 30 frames per-second, with initially very little in the way of slowdown. I was surprised at just how smooth the game was during hectic encounters with ten, even twenty enemies on screen all at once, explosions being set off and carnage ensuing in the aftermath. Slowdown it seems only occurs when there is a huge amount going on at the same time, and even then I didn’t find all that much in the way of sharp spikes in smoothness, either up or down. Instead the game manages its framerate extremely well, favouring smaller dips rather than the heavy drops of PS3 GTA IV or Red Dead.

Crackdown 2 also seems to be v-synced most of the time, although screen tearing is present and is pretty noticeable when it properly occurs, it only really happens in more intense situations when the screen is busy, and I mean really busy. For much of the time the game would show what looked like a judder enveloping the entire screen, very slight in nature and almost as if the game had caught up with any frames it was about to tear. Suffice to say, it isn’t an issue during normal play, and the game quickly regains control of the v-sync in spite of the occasional blip.

In terms of comparing these findings with that of the original Crackdown, I can’t really tell you in-depth how well it performed compared to this sequel because it’s been a while since I last played it. I can tell you however, that there seems to be less screen tear in Crackdown 2, and that the larger framerate drops only occur when the engine is put under greater pressure. In these situations there is clearly more happening on screen than in the first game, so you could say that the engine has seen increased stability to what we were seeing before.

What does appear the same as the first game is the sequel’s rendering resolution and use of anti-aliasing. Crackdown 2 renders at 1280x720 (720p) and uses 2xMSAA which comes as standard with most Xbox 360 titles.


Visually the game looks very clean and sharp, with character edges appearing rather striking due to both the cell shaded look, and highly stylised art direction. Jaggies are kept under control for both environments and characters - even with high contrasting edges which is pretty impressive - although with only 2x edge smoothing not completely eliminated. Some edges receive clear AA, and others less so. Pretty much standard fare 2xMSAA, but with what looks like a better AA sampling to coverage ratio.

The cartoon-esque look of the game also means that any jaggies present don’t always distract or intrude as much as they would in more realistic looking titles, and the game seems to apply AA more successfully here than compared to other titles using the same 2x solution.

Outside of performance and image quality crackdown 2 fares quite well, featuring some improvements and some cutbacks over the first game.

Water in this sequel look far better than before, featuring better use of shaders and texture based-effects, plus the overall lighting system has been given a few tweaks and subtle enhancements over what was present in the first game. The streetlights in particular are now rendered in a higher resolution compared to Crackdown 1, and without that strange bloom effect that seemed to afflict them.

The developers are also pushing more stuff around on screen with a greater amount of maximum enemies appearing at any one time, and environmental detail getting a noticeable increase in places. LOD has also been tweaked and is less aggressive than in the first game, showing off the extra details for further into the distance without cutting back on them too early on. This goes well with the upped levels of foliage, railings, and general details present throughout the game.


All this use of less aggressive LOD, more environment detail, and higher resolution transparency effects do come at a cost however, with the developers cutting back on both texture detail and the way the clouds are rendered compared to the first game.

There is less detail on environmental textures in Crackdown 2, which is quite noticeable in places compared to the original, although the more dense nature of the environment negates this somewhat, as does the improved lighting and increase in texture filtering.

The clouds on the other hand loose their volumetric look, and appear very flat compared to the ones displayed in the original. I can only guess that in order to increase overall performance that they had to scale back on certain things to make this happen, especially as they were building upon an engine which pre-dates the Xbox 360 in it’s development cycle. So asking for a complete re-write maybe would have been too much, and in any case hardly anyone is likely to care, or notice in the long run. Most people will just want to play more Crackdown.

Thing is, as a whole this sequel simply looks better than the first. Some flatter looking clouds and weaker texturing cannot take away from the many improvements that the engine has seen; least of all tarnish the overall graphical polish added to the experience. Granted, Crackdown 2 looks decidedly basic, and well, pretty flat, but at the same time is adhering to it’s own art style which is arguably one of the main differentiating points outside the outlandish open-world action the game provides.

Hardly impressive by today’s standards, but well suited all the same.


In conclusion then, Crackdown 2 represents a small improvement over the original game graphically, with some downgrades, but at the same time those changes were made for the benefit of the gameplay and not, as with many titles, just to visually allure the audience into more of the same.

What we should remember is that the engine is there to facilitate the gameplay, and not the other way around. So, in that respect Ruffian Games have achieved exactly that, delivering improvements which fit in with the style of the game, and the expanded gameplay integral to making this sequel more than just a rehash.

Tech Analysis: Killzone 3 E3 Demo - 2D VS 3D

Killzone 2 is still one of the technical benchmarks for Sony’s PS3. However you might dislike the dark and grainy art style, or the subdued colour palette on offer, the game showed developers (and gamers alike) just what was possible on the system when tightly using the CELL + RSX combo the way is was supposed to be used. And for E3 2010 Sony took Guerrilla Games’ Killzone 3 as their lead technical showcase for not only the PS3, but also for their newly affirmed focus on 3D gaming.

From all the screens and videos released there’s no doubt that Guerrilla’s latest is as visually striking as it is technically brilliant, but what about under the hood? What’s changed? And more importantly how well does the current engine hold up to rendering in 3D, especially with minimal compromises on what’s being pushed around on screen?

Well, in this feature that’s exactly what we’ll be taking a look at, analysing the E3 build of the game in both 3D and 2D, seeing exactly what improvements have been made and what has been paired back in order to get the game working (fully playable I might add) in 3D.

Anyway, before we talk about that in more detail, lets take a look at the game in 2D and see just how it fares at its current point in development.

Like with it’s predecessor Killzone 3 renders in 1280x720, but rather than use quincunx anti-aliasing again the developers have elected to use morphological anti-aliasing instead - a far superior technique for reducing jagged lines whilst maintaining overall image quality.

Looking at the screenshot below, the effect the MLAA has on image quality is obvious. The final image is much sharper and clearer, with fewer jagged lines being present than before, and without any additional blur caused by the use of QAA. The only blur you are seeing in the screens is caused by the various post process, and depth of field effects that Guerrilla are using throughout the game, all of which are artistic choices and not technical compromises. It’s all part of the dark and gritty look of the franchise.


Like with God Of War 3 some surfaces receive as much as 16xMSAA, whilst others more in the range of 4x, or occasionally less in areas with ultra small polygon edges. Ether way the use of MLAA is a marked improvement from the QAA of the first game.

However, unlike in certain games (I’m talking about you Red Dead) the use of QAA in Killzone 2 wasn’t at all detrimental to the overall image. Instead the slightly blurrier looked suited the art style the developers were aiming for, and the image still looked particularly clean and quite sharp. The same could also be said of Insomniac’s Resistance: Fall Of Man, and its sequel - both of which used the infamous QAA.

Switching to MLAA simply allows texture detail to come through unscathed (no blur) with greater levels of edge smoothing at a lower cost. You’re getting a smoother look without making any of the same compromises as before, and potentially saving on memory as well.

So like with God Of War 3 the use of MLAA does much to improve image quality whilst having less of a performance hit than you might think. Although are times in which this new form of anti-aliasing isn’t so effective at dealing with jagged lines, particularly when coming up against sub pixel aliasing - something which does crop up noticeably in parts of Killzone 3. Areas of the game which features loads of thin polygon lines; fences, railings, power cables etc, are all prone to displaying jaggies, and this is something that MLAA can’t really help with.

Below is a clear example of what I mean. In the screenshot it is evident that sub pixel (a triangle smaller in size than a pixel of the rendering resolution) edges receive no AA of any kind, something which would either require a change in how these objects were rendered or a switch to supersampling in order to resolve the problem.


Essentially MLAA works by detecting edges in a scene on a pixel level, finding them and smoothing them over resulting in a highly effective way of dealing with jaggies. This is perfect for high contrast scenes (unlike with MSAA) as edges are clearly detectable thus being easily smoothed over. The problem comes in when the edges you have to deal with are smaller than one pixel of the rendering resolution, and as MLAA works only on pixel size edges anything smaller simply gets no anti-aliasing. Or that is how I understand it. The result is some edge shimmering and noticeable aliasing on objects with lots of sub pixel edges.

Moving on to smoke and particle effects, it is obvious that they are again rendered in a lower resolution than the rest of the game.

Like in Killzone 2 all alpha effect buffers are rendered in 640 x 360 (quarter of the resolution of 720p), a common practice for most PS3 developers due to the system’s lack of available memory bandwidth compared to Microsoft’s 360 with its 10MB EDRAM.

Basically PS3’s GPU, the RSX, features a fairly low pixel fill rate, and this effects how many transparencies can be drawn on screen at any given time. 360 on the other hand through its use of EDRAM provides the GPU with a much higher fill rate enabling not only more transparent objects to be drawn at once, but also to feature transparencies at a matching screen resolution en masse.

In motion the lower resolution of the alpha buffers is hardly visible with the various post processing effects going on – such as depth of field - and they do look rather smooth and well defined. Although, as we can see below in still screens these effects still appear to look softer than the objects around them.


Impressively, it looks like the developers are using volumetric effects for all the smoke in the game (like with Killzone 2), although in reality this is somewhat misleading. Instead of actually rendering 3D volumetric particles, they are using layers of 2D sprites which have been blended together and combined with geometry using something called ‘alpha test’ in order to re-create that volumetric look without the added processing cost of doing it for real.

This blending is also one of the reasons why the smoke and particle effects all look somewhat soft and smoothened, in addition to the AA that they seem to be getting on top of that, and of course the upscaling taking place. It is also noticeable that the higher contrast nature of the stage demoed at E3 seemed to lessen the volumetric look associated with the effects, whilst also diluting the dynamic lighting being used somewhat.


Despite this Killzone 3 still looks visually stunning though, losing nothing along the way from the last game, and the developers may have also seen fit to upgrade the use of ambient occlusion for this latest instalment.

Previously for Killzone 2 Guerrilla were in the process of adding real-time SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion) to the game but didn’t have time to properly implement the effect, instead using baked AO as a substitute. Now it looks like this could have been changed, and for the first time we are seeing what appears to be proper use of SSAO for Killzone 3.

Although officially unconfirmed at this point, the screenshot below clearly shows some evidence of the effect being present. Just check out the shadows on the floor below the Helgast’s feet, in which we can see that something different is definitely going on. SSAO? Maybe. And it wouldn’t be a surprise to see it given the fact that it was being worked on long before development on KZ3 started.

You can also see the improvements made to texture quality compared to KZ2. Textures are clearer, crisper, and generally more detailed than before, perhaps as a result of no blurring being present from using QAA, but also because texture resolution seems to have been upped for certain objects in the game.


From what we’ve seen so far KZ3 is shaping up to be a clear visual improvement over the last game in 2D, with the MLAA being a particular standout, and the cleaner, sharper look appearing giving the game a more polished feel overall. The sense of scale has been noticeably upped, and the sheer amount of stuff going on at once is undoubtedly impressive.

But how does this compare with the game running in 3D?

Surprisingly, Guerrilla Games have also managed to achieve some of these feats when rendering the game in this mode, like keeping in all the complex smoke and particle effects without cutting back on the amount of stuff on screen at any time. However, the game’s rendering resolution in this mode leaves a lot to be desired.

When rendering in 3D you are essentially doubling up most of your graphics work rendering every frame twice, one for each eye. Now, certain things can be carried over between frames to save on performance, but many things can’t, and this why cutbacks have to be made. And for Killzone 3 there are sizable cutbacks with regards to the games rendering resolution, and the resolution of alpha channel visual effects.

Below are two screenshots showing the game in action. The top one shows the game running in 3D mode, and the bottom the same scene but running in 2D. As you can tell the difference is night and day, with the 3D version looking rather unsightly.


Killzone 3 in 3D


Killzone 3 in 2D

Looking at the above screenshots you can see that image quality has taken a massive hit as a result of the steep drop in both rendering resolution of the main framebuffer, and the alpha channel effects buffers.

For its 3D mode Killzone 3 renders in 640x716 with MLAA, and the effects buffers (which were already rendering in quarter resolution) are again halved down to 320x360 creating an unsightly scene of jagged lines and upscaling artefacts.

The alpha effects in particular seem to suffer the most with this, as when they overlap with opaque geometry they cause aliasing atifacts to appear heightening the games increased jagged appearance. In addition shader and sub pixel aliasing are also magnified as a result.

Having to render twice the amount of geometry on screen at once also causes problems, and various reports of seeing the game running in 3D state that there is noticeably greater levels of pop up compared to running in 2D mode. Even though you are running at half resolution, you still have to render the geometry twice so there is still an impact with performance despite cutbacks in the number of pixels being worked on compared to rendering in full 720p for 2D.

So far it isn’t looking too good for Killzone 3 in 3D, with the current build definitely being a poor representation of how the game should look, although in that respect you simply cannot expect standard 2D levels of performance with current generation console hardware. There just isn’t enough power to handle it, and with optimisations only so much can be done. However seeing the game being displayed with all the intricate particle effects and multiple light sources in 3D is pretty impressive, even if the result isn’t as clean or as smooth as we’d like. I would say that it not only shows promise, but also is a key indication of just how much untapped potential is still left inside the PS3 hardware for games in general.

There is also the opinion that increased levels of jagged edges and upscaling artefacts are less visible when viewing them in 3D compared to seeing the same thing in 2D. How true or accurate this is I don’t know, not actually seeing Killzone 3 running in actual 3D in the flesh – only a 2D version of the game’s 3D rendering mode. But the argument for even having a cut down, lower-res 3D mode is unsurprisingly strong, especially given the marketing potential for this new format.

Either way Guerrilla Games have stated that they are targeting 720p (1280x720) for Killzone 3 in 3D, and it’s likely that they’ll do whatever it takes to reach that milestone without overly compromising the look of the game, optimising where necessary, and cutting back on post processing effects that don’t work so well in 3D (motion blur, depth of field). Full 720p looks to be pretty much out of the equation, realistically. But you know, maybe something like 852x720, which would still provide better image quality than 640x716, but without having to cutback as much on the core graphics make up of the game.

With Killzone 3’s release not until February next year the developers have plenty of time to improve and optimise their engine for both 2D and 3D, so it will be rather interesting to see just how well the game fares a few months down the line. As new videos surface, and information gets drip-fed out we shall no doubt be taking another look at the game and the tech behind it.