The ongoing battle between Sony and the pirates looking for a clean way of cracking the PS3 may have just taken an unexpected turn. Today, an Australian company (OzModChips) selling mod-chips revealed via YouTube that the PS3’s security system might finally be completely compromised supposedly allowing for copied games and custom code to be run on the console. Or so various mod sites have been claiming.
Apparently, the company was sent a USB dongle with software from an unknown source in Hong Kong, and has since been very keen to show off the device’s potential. This dongle looks to contain software which effectively converts a users home PS3 system into a Sony certified debug unit with a few button presses upon start-up. Shown in the two YouTube videos posted today here and here from the same source, is the complete process of activating the hack and getting retail games copied across to the PS3’s HDD.
The hack, called PSJailbreak, now allows for full retail games to be copied and run over the hard drive on any model PS3 without the aid of any internal modification. Quite what is happening here we’re not sure, but it looks like the dongle either contains some software keys from Sony, and some kind of custom hardware built in allowing the PS3 to be converted into a debug unit of sorts. This would mean that it is likely that someone from inside Sony at least provided the unknown hacker in Hong Kong with the keys, usually signed and locked down deep within developers.
Since OzModChips displayed the hack working on YouTube several other mod chip sites have also confirmed that the hack is apparently real; that the PS3 has been cracked wide open through a rather simple procedure, and what looks like some stolen software keys from Sony. It has also been revealed from an unknown source that Sony are working on a patch to fix the problem (officially unconfirmed), and that this will entail a modified boot sequence for the machine, along with coded game discs for all new releases in order to only make them playable on systems using the latest firmware.
So far Sony has yet to comment on the situation, and the jury’s still out with regards to how authentic the actual hack is itself. Still, this certainly looks like being the first truly successful attempt at completely unlocking the PS3, and a rather bad day for Sony.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Sony Announces New Slim PS3 Models
In what could been seen as a reactionary move by Sony is there ever was one, the company announced at their press conference at this year’s Gamescom in Cologne, Germany that they were planning to replace the two current models of Slim PS3 with ones containing larger hard drives.
The existing 120GB console is to be replaced by a slightly larger 160GB model, and the 250GB one gets upgraded to 320GB. The pricing structure for both machines is to remain the same as the current models. So expect to pay £249.99 for the 160GB version, and £284.99 for the 320GB one.
While these newer models are due to arrive in stores from 15th September, Sony also point out that there might be a cross over with old stock as the old models are phased out, meaning that it is likely that some places may be run additional ‘clearance’ deals for those not too fussed by having a smaller amount of storage capacity.
Currently, PS3 sales are officially standing at 38 million worldwide, whilst the 360, on 41.2 million, leads by a small margin. However, in Europe the situation is reversed with Sony commanding the largest lead in console sales between the PS3 and the 360 in any territory. With this in mind Sony’s Andrew House commented that the launch of these new models of PS3 was to ‘maintain leadership’ in that particular territory.
After the slow start in sales following the launch of the PS3 in March 2007 in Europe for a whopping £425, it appears Sony is well and truly back on track with the PlayStation brand, and that means the battle can only get more interesting from here on out. Perhaps now’s the right time for the company to turn their attention around to the ailing PSP brand, and the inevitable PSP2.
The existing 120GB console is to be replaced by a slightly larger 160GB model, and the 250GB one gets upgraded to 320GB. The pricing structure for both machines is to remain the same as the current models. So expect to pay £249.99 for the 160GB version, and £284.99 for the 320GB one.
While these newer models are due to arrive in stores from 15th September, Sony also point out that there might be a cross over with old stock as the old models are phased out, meaning that it is likely that some places may be run additional ‘clearance’ deals for those not too fussed by having a smaller amount of storage capacity.
Currently, PS3 sales are officially standing at 38 million worldwide, whilst the 360, on 41.2 million, leads by a small margin. However, in Europe the situation is reversed with Sony commanding the largest lead in console sales between the PS3 and the 360 in any territory. With this in mind Sony’s Andrew House commented that the launch of these new models of PS3 was to ‘maintain leadership’ in that particular territory.
After the slow start in sales following the launch of the PS3 in March 2007 in Europe for a whopping £425, it appears Sony is well and truly back on track with the PlayStation brand, and that means the battle can only get more interesting from here on out. Perhaps now’s the right time for the company to turn their attention around to the ailing PSP brand, and the inevitable PSP2.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Tech Analysis: Mafia II Demo (PS3 vs 360)
It is pretty commonplace to say that titles which feature much in the way of dense foliage, high levels of geometry and plenty of alpha-based transparency effects usually have serious issues with performance on consoles. The framerate often tends to suffer, texture detail gets scaled back, and sometimes the framebuffer resolution takes a massive dive. All of these things not only impact on overall image quality but also take you firmly out of the lavish world the developers have tried so hard to create.
Large, open-world, sandbox type affairs is where this kind of thing happens the most. These types of games are rarely suited to the constrained nature of home console hardware specifications. Even when properly optimised, they still require a large memory footprint, not to mention a hefty chunk of GPU power - a commodity not quite as widely available as you might think given the Uncharted’s and Killzone’s of this world.
Mafia II is one of those games. But unlike the with Red Dead Redemption, the game isn’t anywhere near as polished, with the developers attempting to cram in every last detail of the lead PC version onto the consoles with somewhat mixed results. The world created here is huge and incredibly detailed, with not only high poly counts, but also lots of small intricate touches which really bring out the noticeable attention to detail that has gone into nearly every facet of the game’s visual make up. It’s this approach, which not only provides a genuinely immersive experience, but one that also causes the game no end of problems on both platforms.
It’s also these problems that at times really threaten to derail the experience - the feel that you are indeed part of a living, breathing 1950’s videogame world, and your enjoyment of that world. Although after playing each demo for several hours this doesn’t always seem to be the case. But the problems are pretty distracting at times, and at the very least the game could have benefited from additional polish and optimisations before release. Maybe in the final game we shall see some changes, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Despite what the screenshots on this page might be telling you on first glance, Mafia II actually renders in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms, with the blurriness found in some of the screens down to an additional blur filter being layered over parts of the image during the final stage of rendering.
As per usual the 360 version of the game receives 2xMSAA (multisampling anti-aliasing), while the PS3 is left with no AA at all, which is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from most multiplatform conversions these days. However, it is apparent that the 360’s use of AA here in Mafia II isn’t quite as good as it could be, as although 2x is applied largely to the whole image it also fails to succeed in managing the amount of jagged edges which appear throughout the game.
In any given scene some parts of it clearly get 2x AA, whilst other obviously do not. This faliure of dealing with aliasing also doesn’t appear to be due to any high contrasting pixel edges, as even in mid to dark areas with very little in the way of drastic contrast changes the AA fails as effortlessly as it does elsewhere. Instead, it simply appears that 2K Czech’s method of implementing 2xMSAA simply isn’t all that effective when mixed with all the other rendering elements in the engine. Comparatively, the PC version also suffers from this problem also, proving that it is definitely something with how the AA conflicts with other parts of the graphics make up.
As we mentioned earlier Mafia II also includes an additional blur filter on top of the 2xMSAA found in the 360 build, and no AA in the PS3 one. This is basically a 1-pxel wide edge blur, and it is applied to surfaces after the anti-aliasing has been done, much like the effect we saw back in the Dante’s Inferno demo on the 360.
Effectively, this results in a heightened amount of softness in the overall image which almost negates the use of rendering in full 720p. Instead the developers could have cut out the blur, rendered in slightly lower sub-HD resolution, and clawed back some of the performance they so seem to be missing.
The PS3 build also gets the same method of blur. However, the lack of AA means that despite this additional effect the overall image is sharper compared to that of the 360 build.
Bizarrely, this effect on the PS3 is pretty inconsistent compared to the one found on the 360 game, and also doesn’t seem to be as strong either. Sometimes the entire scene is completely blurred, while at other times it only seems to affect certain objects rather than everything on screen. The blur doesn’t appear to be selective either, so we’re not sure quite what is going on. It’s rather strange to say the least.
Now given the overall open world nature of the game the use of a full 720p frame buffer with or without AA is pretty impressive, especially when you consider how much stuff is being rendered in order to make up the richly detailed game world. It is no surprise then, to learn that certain effects have had to be paired back in order to allow for this feat to happen.
For one, much of the game’s foliage - simple 2D sprites which always turn and rotate towards facing the camera – and other such parts of the world are rendered in a lower resolution compared to the rest of the scene. And this applies to both platforms, which generally share similar compromises in maintaining high detail levels. There are of course some differences between the two versions, mainly pertaining to the use of varying blend effects for transparencies, the amount of foliage on screen, and the higher saturation of lighting in the 360 game.
As you can see in the screenshots below, the 360 build is using A2C for blending all of it’s alpha effects on foliage, while the PS3 is using some other method, though apparently it isn’t plain old alpha coverage.
A2C is normally chosen in order to save on overall memory bandwidth costs and additional processing power. Basically transparencies and objects which use it are rendered in an interlaced manner of sorts, effectively halving their resolution. The result is a screendoor look to everything that uses it, and a distinctly grainy appearance. This grainy look is usually blended away through the use of high levels of MSAA making this side effect far less noticeable. However, since the 360 build’s implementation of AA is less than successful it fails to work in doing this.
Combined with the blur filter and broken AA solution the foliage, like the rest of the game, appears very soft and distinctly sub-HD even in areas when it is not. By comparison, the PS3 build features much sharper looking foliage due to not using A2C, and by skipping over the broken AA solution entirely.
This additional sharpness, along with using a different blend technique for transparencies means that unlike on 360 the foliage tends to suffer from terrible shimmering, and plenty of crawling jagged edges. Pretty much everything from the foliage, to the buildings and power lines are affected by this, and it can be really unsightly.
Furthermore, the PS3 version has also seen additional cut backs to the levels of detail on offer throughout the game, and lacks the distinct shading method known as SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion).
In order to work around the tighter memory constraints found in Sony’s machine, including the lack of available EDRAM (read: none) the developers have paired back much of the foliage on the PS3 game, reducing certain areas from densely packed fields of front lawn grass into a series of flat looking texture maps. It’s pretty disappointing to say the least, and really gives the game a flatter look overall compared to the other versions of the game.
Another thing is that the LOD system appears to be slightly more forceful on the PS3 build leading to higher levels of pop-up and less immediately visible on screen details. Thankfully it is only subtly worse than the 360 build, with the LOD issue being more noticeable in certain areas than others.
However, the foliage and LOD is really the only elements which has been noticeably cut back in terms of creating environment detail on PS3, leaving the rest of the game looking basically the same. This is both a good and a bad thing as it means that the un-optimised code constantly struggles to maintain any kind of consistent framerate, with lots of screen tear and heavy dips in smoothness.
In terms of shadowing differences, on the 360 side of things you have the inclusion of SSAO, which used to create an extra sense of depth to the image that you wouldn’t find with traditional shading alone. Sadly the use of this effect is particularly bad, and so inconsistently poor in its implementation that I have to wonder why the developers even decided to include it. Instead they could have feed up additional GPU power for other things if it simply wasn’t there. Certainly, the additional impression of depth wasn’t worth the effort.
The SSAO in Mafia II is clearly rendered in a very low resolution and suffers from noticeable pixelation at times, leading to shadows that can appear fuzzy and rather shimmery as a result, making the game look more rough around the edges than perhaps it should.
Shadows also appeared dithered on the 360 causing further artifacts which stick out noticeably compared to the PS3 build’s cleaner approach. Like with the use of A2C on the foliage, shadows look somewhat grainy, and are pretty fuzzy around the edges. The PS3 game also features slightly dithered shadows, but thankfully not to the same extent as found on the 360.
Outside of these graphical differences both versions of the game look very similar, if not mostly identical. That is to say that they are both lavishly detailed, and contain lots of neat little touches throughout. Everything from power lines to small backyard and side street fences are represented here, along with cracked kerbside slabs and subtle differences in similar building architecture have been meticulously implemented. It’s pretty impressive to say the least, and accurately matches up to the high-spec PC version.
Having this level of attention to detail on any console game compared to its PC counterpart is looking for trouble, especially when trying to achieve a decent level of performance without sacrificing playability. And this is exactly where Mafia II falls down. The game simply cannot hope to achieve a stable framerate when so much is being pushed around on screen at any given time, not to mention a near constant lack of being able to hold v-sync.
It is pretty obvious that the developers were originally aiming for a baseline framerate around the 30fps mark, with the overall framerate being allowed to drop off in heavy load situations. However, the game very rarely reaches that point at all throughout the demo. Even when starting out in the confines of your home, free from all the dense levels of detail visible outside, the framerate still takes a heavy dive below the expected 30fps, ending up somewhere in the mid 20’s, or often less.
In fact, the game regularly runs at between 20 to 25fps with drops venturing down to the 15fps mark in busy situations, and this causes no end of problems from erratic controller responsiveness, to an increase in noticeable jagged edges and aliasing artifacts. The additional controller lag when such constant drops in smoothness happen is what really impacts on the gameplay experience on offer here. I would even go as far as to say that it can make the game near unplayable at times, with your ability to accurately aim and take out the enemy being compromised continuously.
Most titles that suffer from such heavy framerate drops do so because the developers have decided to use v-sync in order to prevent the noticeable screen-tearing that would otherwise occur due to the constant changes in screen refresh. Sadly, Mafia II isn’t one of them. And as far as I can tell the game doesn’t even try to employ any kind of v-sync to help balance out the terrible framerate issues. Instead, what you are left with is a title that suffers from both large constant drops in framerate, and heavy screen tear – mostly at the same time - which affects both platforms to an almost equal extent, with the PS3 version coming off worse in the end.
Most noticeable is the fact that a large percentage of the tearing is happening right in the centre of the screen, thus greatly impacting on not only your overall field of view, but also providing a clear distraction which serves only to further hinder your progress. At worst, the game will decide to drop down to around 20fps and allow for heavy mid-screen tearing to occur, during which a reduction in controller response time, and the uneven refresh rate make any kind of quick and concise play completely useless in larger action sequences.
The PS3 game also tends to tear slightly more frequently than the 360 one. Thankfully this occurs mostly in the overscan area of the screen, so it’s not noticeable in real-world terms. However, the game does drop its framerate more heavily in the same situations as the 360 build, which is a different story altogether.
Overall, there’s simply no question that Mafia II’s general performance is sub-par, and is perhaps one of the worst titles that I have come across this generation when comparing games on either platform to other similar releases.
Despite featuring copious amounts of detail, and lots of subtleties everywhere you look, Mafia II clearly suffers from huge framerate issues, intrusive screen tearing, and a host of other noticeable graphical problems, all of which really show up the game’s original ‘made for PC’ heritage. Failing to properly optimise the title for consoles is exactly why, unlike Red Dead Redemption, Mafia II fails to command your senses in the way Rockstar’s title does so effortlessly.
It’s such a shame as 2K Games have created a world that is so full of personality, packed with intricate little details that it is so easy to initially become immersed in when you are first starting out. Unfortunately the game’s poor framerate, terrible jagged edges, and overall soft looking display completely take you out of the experience. Also hampering your potential enjoyment of the title is the laggy control which manifests itself whenever the framerate drops. And sadly that is pretty much continuously, regardless of whether anything intensive is happening on screen or not.
In conclusion, it is hard to recommend either console version of Mafia II. Both builds suffer terribly from various performance and graphical related problems. Although in the end it is the 360 version which is slightly less unsightly to look at, due to less edge shimmering and aliasing, even if the result is a blurrier image overall. The use of low-res SSAO and dithered shadows is a strong negative point however, and does distract from the noticeably more detailed foliage.
Personally, when it comes down to it I’d track down the vastly superior PC version of the game, in which it should be possible to achieve at least 720p with 2xMSAA at 60fps on a mid-spec gaming rig - something which both the PS3 and 360 can only dream of with regards to this release.
Thanks to Mr Deap for our comparison screens, and as always to AlStrong for his superb pixel counting skills.
Large, open-world, sandbox type affairs is where this kind of thing happens the most. These types of games are rarely suited to the constrained nature of home console hardware specifications. Even when properly optimised, they still require a large memory footprint, not to mention a hefty chunk of GPU power - a commodity not quite as widely available as you might think given the Uncharted’s and Killzone’s of this world.
Mafia II is one of those games. But unlike the with Red Dead Redemption, the game isn’t anywhere near as polished, with the developers attempting to cram in every last detail of the lead PC version onto the consoles with somewhat mixed results. The world created here is huge and incredibly detailed, with not only high poly counts, but also lots of small intricate touches which really bring out the noticeable attention to detail that has gone into nearly every facet of the game’s visual make up. It’s this approach, which not only provides a genuinely immersive experience, but one that also causes the game no end of problems on both platforms.
It’s also these problems that at times really threaten to derail the experience - the feel that you are indeed part of a living, breathing 1950’s videogame world, and your enjoyment of that world. Although after playing each demo for several hours this doesn’t always seem to be the case. But the problems are pretty distracting at times, and at the very least the game could have benefited from additional polish and optimisations before release. Maybe in the final game we shall see some changes, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Despite what the screenshots on this page might be telling you on first glance, Mafia II actually renders in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms, with the blurriness found in some of the screens down to an additional blur filter being layered over parts of the image during the final stage of rendering.
As per usual the 360 version of the game receives 2xMSAA (multisampling anti-aliasing), while the PS3 is left with no AA at all, which is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from most multiplatform conversions these days. However, it is apparent that the 360’s use of AA here in Mafia II isn’t quite as good as it could be, as although 2x is applied largely to the whole image it also fails to succeed in managing the amount of jagged edges which appear throughout the game.
In any given scene some parts of it clearly get 2x AA, whilst other obviously do not. This faliure of dealing with aliasing also doesn’t appear to be due to any high contrasting pixel edges, as even in mid to dark areas with very little in the way of drastic contrast changes the AA fails as effortlessly as it does elsewhere. Instead, it simply appears that 2K Czech’s method of implementing 2xMSAA simply isn’t all that effective when mixed with all the other rendering elements in the engine. Comparatively, the PC version also suffers from this problem also, proving that it is definitely something with how the AA conflicts with other parts of the graphics make up.
As we mentioned earlier Mafia II also includes an additional blur filter on top of the 2xMSAA found in the 360 build, and no AA in the PS3 one. This is basically a 1-pxel wide edge blur, and it is applied to surfaces after the anti-aliasing has been done, much like the effect we saw back in the Dante’s Inferno demo on the 360.
Effectively, this results in a heightened amount of softness in the overall image which almost negates the use of rendering in full 720p. Instead the developers could have cut out the blur, rendered in slightly lower sub-HD resolution, and clawed back some of the performance they so seem to be missing.
The PS3 build also gets the same method of blur. However, the lack of AA means that despite this additional effect the overall image is sharper compared to that of the 360 build.
Bizarrely, this effect on the PS3 is pretty inconsistent compared to the one found on the 360 game, and also doesn’t seem to be as strong either. Sometimes the entire scene is completely blurred, while at other times it only seems to affect certain objects rather than everything on screen. The blur doesn’t appear to be selective either, so we’re not sure quite what is going on. It’s rather strange to say the least.
Now given the overall open world nature of the game the use of a full 720p frame buffer with or without AA is pretty impressive, especially when you consider how much stuff is being rendered in order to make up the richly detailed game world. It is no surprise then, to learn that certain effects have had to be paired back in order to allow for this feat to happen.
For one, much of the game’s foliage - simple 2D sprites which always turn and rotate towards facing the camera – and other such parts of the world are rendered in a lower resolution compared to the rest of the scene. And this applies to both platforms, which generally share similar compromises in maintaining high detail levels. There are of course some differences between the two versions, mainly pertaining to the use of varying blend effects for transparencies, the amount of foliage on screen, and the higher saturation of lighting in the 360 game.
As you can see in the screenshots below, the 360 build is using A2C for blending all of it’s alpha effects on foliage, while the PS3 is using some other method, though apparently it isn’t plain old alpha coverage.
A2C is normally chosen in order to save on overall memory bandwidth costs and additional processing power. Basically transparencies and objects which use it are rendered in an interlaced manner of sorts, effectively halving their resolution. The result is a screendoor look to everything that uses it, and a distinctly grainy appearance. This grainy look is usually blended away through the use of high levels of MSAA making this side effect far less noticeable. However, since the 360 build’s implementation of AA is less than successful it fails to work in doing this.
Combined with the blur filter and broken AA solution the foliage, like the rest of the game, appears very soft and distinctly sub-HD even in areas when it is not. By comparison, the PS3 build features much sharper looking foliage due to not using A2C, and by skipping over the broken AA solution entirely.
This additional sharpness, along with using a different blend technique for transparencies means that unlike on 360 the foliage tends to suffer from terrible shimmering, and plenty of crawling jagged edges. Pretty much everything from the foliage, to the buildings and power lines are affected by this, and it can be really unsightly.
Furthermore, the PS3 version has also seen additional cut backs to the levels of detail on offer throughout the game, and lacks the distinct shading method known as SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion).
In order to work around the tighter memory constraints found in Sony’s machine, including the lack of available EDRAM (read: none) the developers have paired back much of the foliage on the PS3 game, reducing certain areas from densely packed fields of front lawn grass into a series of flat looking texture maps. It’s pretty disappointing to say the least, and really gives the game a flatter look overall compared to the other versions of the game.
Another thing is that the LOD system appears to be slightly more forceful on the PS3 build leading to higher levels of pop-up and less immediately visible on screen details. Thankfully it is only subtly worse than the 360 build, with the LOD issue being more noticeable in certain areas than others.
However, the foliage and LOD is really the only elements which has been noticeably cut back in terms of creating environment detail on PS3, leaving the rest of the game looking basically the same. This is both a good and a bad thing as it means that the un-optimised code constantly struggles to maintain any kind of consistent framerate, with lots of screen tear and heavy dips in smoothness.
In terms of shadowing differences, on the 360 side of things you have the inclusion of SSAO, which used to create an extra sense of depth to the image that you wouldn’t find with traditional shading alone. Sadly the use of this effect is particularly bad, and so inconsistently poor in its implementation that I have to wonder why the developers even decided to include it. Instead they could have feed up additional GPU power for other things if it simply wasn’t there. Certainly, the additional impression of depth wasn’t worth the effort.
The SSAO in Mafia II is clearly rendered in a very low resolution and suffers from noticeable pixelation at times, leading to shadows that can appear fuzzy and rather shimmery as a result, making the game look more rough around the edges than perhaps it should.
Shadows also appeared dithered on the 360 causing further artifacts which stick out noticeably compared to the PS3 build’s cleaner approach. Like with the use of A2C on the foliage, shadows look somewhat grainy, and are pretty fuzzy around the edges. The PS3 game also features slightly dithered shadows, but thankfully not to the same extent as found on the 360.
Outside of these graphical differences both versions of the game look very similar, if not mostly identical. That is to say that they are both lavishly detailed, and contain lots of neat little touches throughout. Everything from power lines to small backyard and side street fences are represented here, along with cracked kerbside slabs and subtle differences in similar building architecture have been meticulously implemented. It’s pretty impressive to say the least, and accurately matches up to the high-spec PC version.
Having this level of attention to detail on any console game compared to its PC counterpart is looking for trouble, especially when trying to achieve a decent level of performance without sacrificing playability. And this is exactly where Mafia II falls down. The game simply cannot hope to achieve a stable framerate when so much is being pushed around on screen at any given time, not to mention a near constant lack of being able to hold v-sync.
It is pretty obvious that the developers were originally aiming for a baseline framerate around the 30fps mark, with the overall framerate being allowed to drop off in heavy load situations. However, the game very rarely reaches that point at all throughout the demo. Even when starting out in the confines of your home, free from all the dense levels of detail visible outside, the framerate still takes a heavy dive below the expected 30fps, ending up somewhere in the mid 20’s, or often less.
In fact, the game regularly runs at between 20 to 25fps with drops venturing down to the 15fps mark in busy situations, and this causes no end of problems from erratic controller responsiveness, to an increase in noticeable jagged edges and aliasing artifacts. The additional controller lag when such constant drops in smoothness happen is what really impacts on the gameplay experience on offer here. I would even go as far as to say that it can make the game near unplayable at times, with your ability to accurately aim and take out the enemy being compromised continuously.
Most titles that suffer from such heavy framerate drops do so because the developers have decided to use v-sync in order to prevent the noticeable screen-tearing that would otherwise occur due to the constant changes in screen refresh. Sadly, Mafia II isn’t one of them. And as far as I can tell the game doesn’t even try to employ any kind of v-sync to help balance out the terrible framerate issues. Instead, what you are left with is a title that suffers from both large constant drops in framerate, and heavy screen tear – mostly at the same time - which affects both platforms to an almost equal extent, with the PS3 version coming off worse in the end.
Most noticeable is the fact that a large percentage of the tearing is happening right in the centre of the screen, thus greatly impacting on not only your overall field of view, but also providing a clear distraction which serves only to further hinder your progress. At worst, the game will decide to drop down to around 20fps and allow for heavy mid-screen tearing to occur, during which a reduction in controller response time, and the uneven refresh rate make any kind of quick and concise play completely useless in larger action sequences.
The PS3 game also tends to tear slightly more frequently than the 360 one. Thankfully this occurs mostly in the overscan area of the screen, so it’s not noticeable in real-world terms. However, the game does drop its framerate more heavily in the same situations as the 360 build, which is a different story altogether.
Overall, there’s simply no question that Mafia II’s general performance is sub-par, and is perhaps one of the worst titles that I have come across this generation when comparing games on either platform to other similar releases.
Despite featuring copious amounts of detail, and lots of subtleties everywhere you look, Mafia II clearly suffers from huge framerate issues, intrusive screen tearing, and a host of other noticeable graphical problems, all of which really show up the game’s original ‘made for PC’ heritage. Failing to properly optimise the title for consoles is exactly why, unlike Red Dead Redemption, Mafia II fails to command your senses in the way Rockstar’s title does so effortlessly.
It’s such a shame as 2K Games have created a world that is so full of personality, packed with intricate little details that it is so easy to initially become immersed in when you are first starting out. Unfortunately the game’s poor framerate, terrible jagged edges, and overall soft looking display completely take you out of the experience. Also hampering your potential enjoyment of the title is the laggy control which manifests itself whenever the framerate drops. And sadly that is pretty much continuously, regardless of whether anything intensive is happening on screen or not.
In conclusion, it is hard to recommend either console version of Mafia II. Both builds suffer terribly from various performance and graphical related problems. Although in the end it is the 360 version which is slightly less unsightly to look at, due to less edge shimmering and aliasing, even if the result is a blurrier image overall. The use of low-res SSAO and dithered shadows is a strong negative point however, and does distract from the noticeably more detailed foliage.
Personally, when it comes down to it I’d track down the vastly superior PC version of the game, in which it should be possible to achieve at least 720p with 2xMSAA at 60fps on a mid-spec gaming rig - something which both the PS3 and 360 can only dream of with regards to this release.
Thanks to Mr Deap for our comparison screens, and as always to AlStrong for his superb pixel counting skills.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Review: Dragon Quest IX (DS)
I’ll be honest. I’m a little biased towards the Dragon Quest games after my experiences with Dragon Quest VIII, a game which I would highly recommend playing to anyone with a forlorn looking PS2 and 60 hours of spare time. Dragon Quest VIII had charm, a captivating story and a fantastic, albeit it traditional, battle system. Dragon Quest IX seems to have taken these qualities and to myself, and several of my colleagues, become the best RPG on the DS console.It’s difficult to say why. The game itself seems to have very little in terms of game play mechanics that differentiate it from the other Japanese RPGs the DS offers. The reason for this, I would suggest, is because it does everything that a traditional JRPG would do, very well.
The graphics are outstanding for a DS game; in cut scenes the characters’ faces can be seen clearly and do not appear too pixilated. When in battle there is a huge amount of detail visible, both on the monsters and on the equipment worn by your party. The only time I noticed that the graphics on the game were disappointing was whilst playing on a DSI XL console, when the pixels on the characters were blown up to make the appearance of everyone and anything appears very ‘blocky’. Having said that, I do not own a DSI XL myself, and this has been the only game I have tried it on, so I cannot definitively say whether this is due to hardware or software (hardware unfortunately – Dave).
The battle system is very simple and easy to navigate. The player will choose from several options, allowing either a basic attack, or the chance to cast a spell, to use a special ability (which are not over-powered and are situation- specific) or to use an item. You can also build up a character’s ‘tension’ over time to finally unleash a super charged move that can deal massive damage. This feature is useless in standard battles but is often a successful tactic in boss battles, allowing a bit of variation in the play.
You start the game with a default class or ‘vocation’ as they are known in Dragon Quest IX. As a minstrel you are rather akin to a Jack of All Trades which allows you complete freedom in choosing your fellow comrades later in the game. There are a number of character classes in Dragon Quest IX, beginning the game with the options of the Warrior, Mage, Priest, Thief, Martial Artist and Minstrel, but later able to unlock several additional classes. You are able to change your original character’s role about 10 hours in to the game but the level of your character is dependent on the vocation, meaning that each time you change any of the parties roles, they will start at level 1 again (unless you have previously levelled that vocation). This adds an additional level of strategy into the game as you have to think carefully about whether you have members of the party of a high enough level to support your level 1 ranger until they have gained much more experience.
At the beginning of the game you are able to design your character, choosing features such as your height, hairstyle and colour, eye shape and colour, and name. Later on you are able to choose an extra 3 companions, who you can either design yourself or accept predesigned characters created by the game. Every time you equip a new sword or a new robe or piece of armor the appearance of your character will change to reflect this. For me this resulted in hours of playing around with outfit combinations to get my characters looking as well dressed as should befit the hero of the mortal realms.
After you have created a hero you are thrown head first into the story, and learn that you are from a race of guardians, tasked with protecting the mortal world. You acquire a lovely set of wings and a halo but sadly and inevitably as in all JRPGs things start to go wrong, and the hero is cast down to the world below, loses their guardian status, and is gifted with a quest to build benevolence and thanks in order to get back home.
As with most RPGs there are a huge number of side quests that upon completion allow you access to rare equipment, weapons, items, or unlock additional job classes for your characters. This adds a great deal of play time to the game, as you set off to all four corners of the earth in a hunt for 3 rabbit tails, with the knowledge that upon completion you will receive that new shiny helm. Added to this is an achievement system that awards you new titles every time you hit a significant point. For example achieving rank 1 in sword skill, or taking part in 500 battles. For many players of JRPGS this adds to their already burning desire to have every piece of equipment or learnt every skill available.
The story is traditional, but this is in no way a bad thing, and the wit and speed with which the story transgresses means that you become captivated with the game’s plot. However due to the multiplayer ability built into the game, your own party results in 4 created characters with no personality whatsoever. There is no dialogue between your own character and your party members, and even your own character seems to have no personality. It is therefore very difficult to feel any sort of emotional attachment to any of the created characters. This is a shame because when it comes to the NPCs in the game, you often feel emotions when some evil befalls them. I do not wish to ruin the game for anyone but one sub storyline made me genuinely sad (One word, Coffingwell).
The multiplayer option in the game is excellently integrated. One player acts as a host and up to 3 friends can join in on their game. However they are not limited to simply following the host around, but instead can explore much as they can on their own game. There has even been the inclusion of blue chests that can be opened by the non-hosting players, as well as by the host when they return to single player. If the host requires assistance, other players can jump to their aid after a summons, which pulls them straight into the host’s current battle seamlessly.
I would highly recommend this game to any fan of the JRPG or even to anyone who is looking for a good game to get their teeth into this summer. Although some might consider the battle system slow moving, or the game play too similar to other games available, the game has bucket loads of charm which will captivate anyone willing it to give it a chance. Now, I need to go and hunt down some slimes to complete my set of slime armor…
VERDICT: 9/10
Mary Antieul, Contributor
Thursday, 12 August 2010
PlayStation Phone Emerging?
Over the last few years there have been a few rumours doing the rounds singling out a potential link between the PlayStation brand and the mobile Phone. Many still believe that in order to truly succeed, as well as compete against the iPhone and DS casual market, that the PSP2 will effectively double up as a mobile phone and a lead gaming device, offering all the usual gaming and multimedia functionality on the go along with the ability to make calls.
Today, Engadget is reporting that Sony may well be planning to release a new mobile phone that not only has some serious gaming potential, but also that it features the prominent PlayStation branding firmly on its design. The new smartphone, currently in development at the Sony Ericsson wing of the company, is reportedly powered by the Android 3.0 operating system, and features a version of the Snapdragon SoC (system on a chip) running at 1GHz.
The device is speculated to have graphical capabilities somewhere in the region of the original PlayStation (PSX) to that of the PSP, and Sony are said to be interested in bringing existing franchises such as God Of War, Call Of Duty and Little big Planet to the system.
Apparently, the design of the phone is similar to both the Samsung Captivate and the PSPgo, featuring a panel that slides out to reveal the controls used for gaming. A d-pad and action buttons were mentioned, along with some shoulder buttons and a touch pad to replace the analogue nub found on all versions of the PSP. The device will also feature a 5 megapixel camera, and the overall screen size is estimated to be between 3.7 to 4.1 inches.
An October release date was said to be possible, which means that the device would arrive to market long before the PSP2 and provide Sony with a reasonable alternative to Apple’s domineering platform.
Interestingly, the phone is said to be labelled with the Xperia brand, although the PlayStation branding will also make an appearance. Could this be part of a unified branding strategy across all Sony platforms?
It definitely looks that way. However, having two devices with the strong PlayStation branding could very well split the market, with some wondering whether or not this phone is a proper successor to the existing PSP, or simply an extension of the brand in a different form. Certainly, it isn’t the PSP2, as rumours from other sources have already confirmed that it is being worked on independently from other mobile projects, meaning that this new smartphone is more of an extension of the whole PSN and PlayStation branding concept revealed by Sony a while back.
Saying that, the report also mentions Google, and the company's plan for a new 'ecosysyem' with Sony, so maybe this is only part of their original strategy.
Perhaps the biggest question that needs answering right now, is how this device will fit in the grand scheme of things with Sony’s own PSP2, and the PlayStation platform in general – something that isn’t apparently clear to us at the moment, and certainly makes little sense given the likelihood of the PSP2 emerging shortly.
Either way it is clear that the company sees incredible value in the space Apple currently occupy, and are looking towards this new cross branded phone as a way of entering that market.
Today, Engadget is reporting that Sony may well be planning to release a new mobile phone that not only has some serious gaming potential, but also that it features the prominent PlayStation branding firmly on its design. The new smartphone, currently in development at the Sony Ericsson wing of the company, is reportedly powered by the Android 3.0 operating system, and features a version of the Snapdragon SoC (system on a chip) running at 1GHz.
The device is speculated to have graphical capabilities somewhere in the region of the original PlayStation (PSX) to that of the PSP, and Sony are said to be interested in bringing existing franchises such as God Of War, Call Of Duty and Little big Planet to the system.
Apparently, the design of the phone is similar to both the Samsung Captivate and the PSPgo, featuring a panel that slides out to reveal the controls used for gaming. A d-pad and action buttons were mentioned, along with some shoulder buttons and a touch pad to replace the analogue nub found on all versions of the PSP. The device will also feature a 5 megapixel camera, and the overall screen size is estimated to be between 3.7 to 4.1 inches.
An October release date was said to be possible, which means that the device would arrive to market long before the PSP2 and provide Sony with a reasonable alternative to Apple’s domineering platform.
Interestingly, the phone is said to be labelled with the Xperia brand, although the PlayStation branding will also make an appearance. Could this be part of a unified branding strategy across all Sony platforms?
It definitely looks that way. However, having two devices with the strong PlayStation branding could very well split the market, with some wondering whether or not this phone is a proper successor to the existing PSP, or simply an extension of the brand in a different form. Certainly, it isn’t the PSP2, as rumours from other sources have already confirmed that it is being worked on independently from other mobile projects, meaning that this new smartphone is more of an extension of the whole PSN and PlayStation branding concept revealed by Sony a while back.
Saying that, the report also mentions Google, and the company's plan for a new 'ecosysyem' with Sony, so maybe this is only part of their original strategy.
Perhaps the biggest question that needs answering right now, is how this device will fit in the grand scheme of things with Sony’s own PSP2, and the PlayStation platform in general – something that isn’t apparently clear to us at the moment, and certainly makes little sense given the likelihood of the PSP2 emerging shortly.
Either way it is clear that the company sees incredible value in the space Apple currently occupy, and are looking towards this new cross branded phone as a way of entering that market.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Tech Report: Kinect - The Latency Question
There has been much talk about the high latency surrounding the Kinect, along with the heavy burden caused by the additional CPU usage that is needed to run the more complicated Kinect games. However this doesn’t have to be the case, and recently in an interview with CVG, Blitz Games and chief technical officer, Andrew Oliver revealed that they have developed a way around the limiting latency factor.
“There are various technologies involved. Some people are using a skeletal system, and it takes a little bit of time to calculate. It’s only a split second. We're actually using a different masking system, which can tighten things up. But this is all software-based, so where some people might see some little cracks, they're easily fixable by software. That is, the camera fundamentally works and gives you the input; game designers are running forward in a completely new area and learning this stuff. It's like any console. The first few games will look like nothing compared to second and third generation.”
He then elaborated on the question of how much lag can we expect to see using their approach, and how cleaver coding can almost eliminate it.
“It depends on what technology you're using. I have seen a few games with a bit of lag, but that is the software choice of the creators; they've programmed it a certain way, and they'll come up with new techniques. We will tighten and tighten it. There doesn't need to be a lag. We can get it down to maybe two frames behind, which is pretty insignificant; you won't notice. We're just learning new tricks. Ours is pretty tight.”
His comments make for interesting reading. Although we have always known that it was down to software in determining how the image is processed, we had no idea that the system in place was so flexible, that the developers can choose what data they want to use from the Kinect.
Ultimately, the way that Kinect works will always produce some lag, even if it is just a very small amount. There is no way around this. The device still needs to provide data to the Xbox 360 console in the form of a depth map, plus RGB camera image, whilst also performing basic set up routines with the sound sensor, before then transmitting it down the USB 2.0 cable to the machine, all of which results in a small amount of fixed lag.
In addition there is more lag added on top of this when the data gets processed by the 360 console. The amount of lag which takes place here depends entirely on how the developer chooses to interpret, and in turn use the data. They may choose not to use the RGB camera layer, instead simply relying on the depth map information, or they could just bypass any skeletal tracking altogether, thus saving on overall processing time but also resulting in lower latency but a more basic motion tracking system as a result.
Indeed, what we now know is that it’s the developer that decides which parts of the system to take advantage of. In effect they can choose to you all, or none of the above tracking methods according to what kind of experience they are looking to create. This means that they could produced a fairly basic game not too dissimilar to something you’d find on the Eye Toy, but with minimal lag. Or something which uses the full extent of the full body tracking available when using the depth map plus RGB camera image combined, resulting in a highly accurate and advanced experience, just at the expense of having noticeably more lag.
For project at Blitz Games they seem to be towing the line between the two. Although we can’t be sure as to how much complex data they are choosing to discard, we do know that to get the overall latency down to one or two frames, that you’ll effectively need to scrap most of the depth map information and forgo advanced skeletal tracking. Essentially, pairing back the image processing down to a bare minimum of what the Kinect can do, whilst also trying to maintain some of it’s more trademark features.
Having a less laggy system is always preferential with regards to any control system in gaming, whether that be a standard control pad or a motion-tracking camera. However, in this case finding a cleaver solution to the issue might also negate some of, or most of the additional features that the Kinect provides over other motion controllers.
You could argue, that what is the point in getting the lag down to one or two frames when you are having to cut back on many of the things which in essence makes Kinect so special. If you’re not going to be doing motion tracking, and just taking advantage of the standard RGB camera then why bother to use Kinect at all. Especially when a simpler solution such as the PS Eye could well be enough to handle the type of software you are trying to create.
So, assuming that Blitz Games aren’t using any kind of depth buffer at all for their title, then Ubisoft could easily convert the game over to the PS Eye with minimal issues. Effectively, if you’re only using a full-colour video stream to create image information for processing then you can do the same using other basic camera systems, thus defeating the point of using Kinect.
However, it is likely that the depth buffer is being used in some way with regards to determining specific object tracking with the final image, even if it isn’t as fully featured as the system used in Microsoft’s own titles. The depth buffer provides valuable information allowing you to single out certain objects for tracking without having to isolate them from an entire full colour image in order to pick out the specific parts in which to track. Using the depth buffer for this purpose would also cut down on the amount of processing that needs to be done. Again, highlighting another plus point for reducing latency with Kinect whilst still taking advantage of some of its advanced features.
All this is simply based on an assumption on what Blitz Games are using with their custom software solution. But without knowing exactly which parts of Kinect they are using, and to what extent, it’s a fairly moot point at this stage. Although it does beg the question of whether it is actually possible to produce a nearly lag-free experience when using any kind of advanced body tracking features with the device.
One thing we can say for sure though, is that titles featuring low latency are probably not using the skeletal tracking system, and that titles which have a noticeable amount of lag are. It’s really that simple, though not in terms of getting the low latency solution to really work effectively.
For Blitz Games solution they have taken to using the GPU of the Xbox 360 along with performing some less strenuous calculations on the CPU. So far most titles we’ve seen use the CPU to do most of the work, and according to Oliver doing it this way can be pretty slow in comparison.
“Well that's interesting, because obviously if you're trying to run your game and look at these huge depth buffers and colour buffers, that's a lot of processing. And it's actually processing that a general CPU is not very good at. So you can seriously loses half your processing if you were to do it that way. We've found that it's all down to shaders, but turning a depth buffer into a skeleton is pretty hardcore shader programming. What you tend to do is write all your algorithms, get it all working in C++ code, and then work out how to now write that in shaders.”
What he’s describing here is how the team at Blitz Games are effectively doing all the depth map processing and skeletal tracking on the GPU using customised shader routines.
“The GPU on the Xbox is very powerful but we've all only been using it for glossy special effects. A really good example of this is Kinectimals, as the most intensive thing that you can do on a GPU is fur rendering. So that GPU is doing all the fur rendering, and I can guarantee that it's also doing a lot of image processing too. It's brilliant that the Xbox has a really good GPU and can handle both these things, but actually writing that shader code to do image analysis is hardcore coding at its extreme!”
Like we mentioned earlier having the GPU handle the processing of all the image data from the Kinect can be incredibly difficult. Although the GPU definitely appears to be more suitable for such a task, it’s just that writing code to take advantage of that requires looking at the problem from outside the box. Now while this is pretty commonplace in PS3 development, on 360 it’s a far rarer occurrence. However it seems that for anyone looking to provide a different Kinect experience, that’s exactly what you will have to do.
Certainly, from the comments coming from Blitz Games’ Chief Technical Officer we can expect titles using the GPU to not only have lower latency, but also retain some of the advanced skeletal tracking feature specific to Kinect. Oliver describes how he and his team are already working within two frames of latency, which should translate roughly to around 132ms lag on top of what your HDTV is already adding to the signal.
Comparatively, top titles which run at 30fps, such as Halo3, are displaying 100ms of lag on top of your HDTV processing delay, and Sony’s own Killzone 2 is said to feature at least 150ms on top of that also. By contrast many first-party Kinect titles are operating at 200ms plus input lag.
When looking at these numbers it is clear that having around 132ms lag in a best case scenario is actually rather good, and is inline with what we expect from most ordinary games running at 30fps. Even Criterion Games’ Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit exhibits at least 100ms of lag at present, with the developers hoping to reduce that down to below the 90ms mark.
Playstation Move also operates within the same basic threshold, with the system capable of delivering games with only around 1 or 2 frames latency; that’s around 66 to 140ms lag on top of your HDTV. This means that through a custom approach to processing data, Kinect is more than capable of matching the Move’s higher numbers with regards to latency.
So, what has become apparent today is that games specifically created for Microsoft’s Kinect don’t necessarily need to have high levels of latency, with the overall complexity of the motion tracking method used signalling just how much lag will or won’t be present.
This also means that there will be a correlation between the kinds of games you can expect to have high latency on the Kinect to the ones that don’t. Titles which use the full potential of the device’s advanced body tracking capabilities, such as yoga or fitness games, are also the ones which will feature noticeably more lag. However, they will also be the ones to really demonstrate how different Kinect is compared to other motion control solutions.
Replicating your movements and translating them to your TV screen accurately is exactly why most people will be buying a Kinect, regardless of the latency. If the experience provides something far in excess of what was possible on the Wii, or on PS Move to the same degree, then it won’t really matter all that much.
What does matter however, is that developers have finally confirmed that they do indeed have a solution to the problem. Performing image analysis on the GPU is clearly said to be faster than MS’s own CPU solution. Plus, there’s always the choice of circumventing some of the full-body tracking in order to use a simpler system whilst still taking advantage of the device’s ability to generate a depth map.
In the end gamers will be sold on Kinect not simply by how much lag they encounter, but by the types of experiences on offer. And if those experiences do indeed manage to bring something fresh and innovative to the table, then adjusting to a little lag here and there isn’t likely to influence their decision to jump in. So, whilst the device might not be suitable for the types of ‘core’ gaming experiences we know and love, that’s not to say that other ones which can possibly cater to those, and casual users, won’t in turn come along and provide the best of both worlds with regards to low latency and advanced body tracking.
Ultimately, it’s going to take one or two years to really see the benefits of this technology, and like when learning new console hardware for the first time, cracks and small niggling issues are going to have to be worked out. Perhaps fittingly, this is also a statement echoed by Blitz Games, who believe that the kinds of experiences that you’re going to be getting in second or third generation of software will be far over and above what we are currently seeing today.
All that’s now left is for developers to really spurn their creativity by fully taking advantage of the various coding tricks and optimisations they’ve learned. And of course, for Microsoft’s marketing department to convince people that Kinect is really worth that £129 price of entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
