Tech Analysis: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (PS3 vs 360)

There has always been quite a considerable gap in between the PS3 and 360 versions of previous Assassin’s Creed titles. Whilst most of the core make-up of each game was in fact pretty much identical, sans occasional differences, both performance and image quality lagged behind on the PS3. So much so that Ubisoft themselves ublicly recognised this, with Level Design Content Director, Phillipe Bergeron, acknowledging that more could be done in a recent interview with IGN.

"At the end of ACII we realised that the PS3 was sort of an afterthought – or, not that it was an afterthought, but we hadn't fully debugged it until the very end, and we had a bunch of frame rate issues and quality issues. This time around we knew that, because we went through it once, so we decided to attack it from the beginning and I think the final product is much more on the level, and even on some parts, the frame rate is probably sometimes better on the PS3 than it is on 360."

The question is though. Did Ubisoft Montreal actually follow through, or are we left with another disappointing PS3 port, complete with noticeably worse performance and a smeary Vaseline-styled look? The answer in fact, may just surprise you. As although Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood shares much with its predecessors, it is certainly a more polished affair in which the PS3 version stands up remarkably well with its 360 counterpart. It is for the most part, bar some texture blurring and a contrast/gamma difference, identical.


360


PS3

As expected Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is rendered in 720p (1280x720) on both formats, with 360 getting the standard issue 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) as usually seen in titles on the platform, and the PS3 once again receiving the alternative quincunx (QAA) solution.

As we’ve mentioned before in previous tech analyses, the very nature of how QAA works in smoothening jagged lines means that the entire image, including textures, gets blurred to some extend. Unlike with MSAA, QAA works on applying the smoothening algorithm to every pixel and not just specific edges.

Essentially edge-based pixels are still sampled in a similar way, however QAA uses a five-point sampling pattern which inconveniently works on all areas of the image regardless of whether an edge is present or not – pixels in both low and high contrast areas are equally affected, which is the main cause of textures becoming blurred as a result.

The choice of using QAA over traditional MSAA then, is rather strange to say the least, considering the technique comes with roughly the same processing and memory cost as 2xMSAA. But the advantage it seems, is with it being able to deliver ample edge smoothing closer to that of 4xMSA, though at the expense of overall scene clarity.

The most obvious reason for its use probably stems from an artistic decision rather than a purely technical one – there’s no reason why MSAA couldn’t have been implemented, so it’s likely that the developers actually wanted to have 4xMSAA type levels of edge smoothing on both platforms, but without any easy way to do so on 360 (you would have to use tiling). The PS3, naturally, has QAA as a standard form of anti-aliasing not included in the 360’s GPU feature-set (it’s an NVIDIA thing), so represents an obvious compromise.

However, compared to some games that use the technique, the QAA in ACB has less of an initial impact in overall image quality than you might expect. Especially seeing as the PS3 build’s 720p output remains fairly sharp and continuously crisp despite additional texture blurring.



Unfortunately, most of our comparison screens for ACB are rather compressed whilst suffering from obvious lack of proper gamma adjustment on the console end, which makes showing the clean appearance of the PS3 build and the extra sharpness of the 360 game rather difficult. As a result we’ve left all the screens untouched - free from additional compression induced labelling, whilst also bringing you two much higher quality PS3 screens in which to demonstrate out findings.

With the two shots above you can clearly see just how sharp the PS3 version really is, with the use of QAA providing a decent level of jaggies reduction without compromising the clarity of polygon edges. Some texture blurring is apparent, which is perhaps the biggest bugbear I have about the technique. But as you can see its affects aren’t especially displeasing - not in every instance - and as a result ACB still looks incredibly good on the PS3.


360


PS3

Despite all our images showcasing what looks like reduced quality texturing in the PS3 build ACB, you can see that the main reason for this is a combination of both the additional blur provided by the use of QAA and the drastic difference in gamma curves for both versions.

This gamma difference is half of what makes the PS3 game look less detailed on first impressions, with textures that could be misconstrued as being in a lower resolution to those not aware of how QAA imapcts on the final image. However, the actual assets used in the game are actually like-for-like, and you can see this when both versions closely scrutinised.

Instead, it is the initially higher contrast and washed out nature of the PS3 game, in combination with the QAA which helps in hiding texture details, and making the filtering come across as looking worse, which in fact, is actually identical (same levels of AF present on both). Calibrating both the brightness through the game’s own menu, and gamma on the HDTV itself practically solves the problem, with the PS3 version looking clean and sharp with more visible detail being present after this is done.


360


PS3


360


PS3

You can clearly see this above: the in-game brightness setting has been adjusted in order to provide a more uniform look across both consoles. HDTV settings haven’t been touched in these two phone captures, instead showing that a similar level of brightness can be obtain by simply changing an option in the game’s menu.

For the most part, like with Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit and indeed past Assassin’s Creed titles, both versions of Brotherhood look pretty much alike in the vast majority of areas, with any differences coming across more as mere quirks and rendering oddities than anything else. Other than the use of QAA and varying gamma curves, only performance really separates them in any meaningful way. And even in this regard, ACB has seen some noticeable improvements on the PS3 side.


360


PS3

In terms of performance past Assassin’s Creed titles have always been behind on the PS3, with more instances of slowdown and much greater amounts of screen tearing. Although in Brotherhood the gap has indeed been closed significantly, with less in the way of either taking place. Naturally, it is the 360 build which still commands an advantage, but both at times, feel and look very similar in this regard.

When looking at both 360 and PS3 versions of most games, it is clear that developers usually try to balance out the use of v-sync with trying to maintain a smooth framerate. Normally, PS3 owners are privy to a near solidly v-synced experience at the expense of a large increase in slowdown. Whilst on the 360, developers usually choose the opposite: ditching v-sync in order to allow for a smoother experience, but with noticeable amounts of screen tearing.

For ACB, like with past AC titles, Ubisoft Montreal have favoured the latter, in which case it is apparent that neither version employs v-sync but both can run relatively smoothly on many occasions. ACB targets a 30fps update, and the framerate is capped at that level – it never goes higher than this, but it does drop below.

However, both versions actually maintain a reasonably solid 30fps most of the time when load isn't being pushed – noticeable drops only really occur in situations where long draw distances are visible, or in areas in the city where crowds converse together. In these sections the 360 version does run smoother, featuring less prolonged dips in framerate (sometimes only by a few seconds or so) and less screen tearing. Although, on most occasions the two games operate near identically, with both dropping frames and tearing terribly at similar points. Bar perhaps the odd point in which the PS3 version felt a little smoother for a brief moment in time.

One thing that is apparent, is that the game on both platforms can suffer from regular, and continuous bouts of screen tearing even when the framerate appears to be mostly solid during the experience. In that respect, it is all too obvious that this concern from the first two AC titles hasn’t been fixed at all. The PS3 version tears more often than the 360 one, and both tear regularly in heavy load situations. Though perhaps this is something that we simply have to accept in order to gain better performance via a smoother overall framerate.

In the end ACB does display an improvement in this area on the PS3, although not quite to the extent we expected given Ubisoft publically released statement. Tearing is still an issue – more torn frames on the PS3 – and the framerate at times still struggles in a scenes with high detail and many characters on screen – on both formats no less. In which case it is obvious that despite some upgrades and optimisations, the PS3 version is still a little behind in terms of overall performance.

Saying that, there are often times where both versions are basically close to being like-for-like, and the differences during gameplay can be so subtle that they can regularly go unnoticed (between both formats). Screen tearing aside, both versions are reasonable performers, with the engine obviously struggling in situations where the overall load exceeds the capacity for it to be resolved.


360


PS3

Moving on, and we can see that the engine powering ACB on both platforms has seen a few steady improvements in the lighting and shadowing departments, along with other additional effects – the water for example, in some places, now looks to be made up of more than just a few texture changes.

Dynamic lighting and shadowing has been expanded upon, and the game features noticeable cloud coverage providing moving shadows which seem to affect the lighting and shadowing on the ground. All of this is done in real time, and actually accounts for some of the shadowing differences you can see in some of the screens.


360


PS3

The most obvious improvement comes with the inclusion of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), which adds an extra level of depth to the scene. Use of SSAO clearly expands the shadowing properties used throughout most of the game, and can be found noticeably on characters, and some parts of the environment. Along with the use of both dynamic and static shadowing, the use of SSAO helps to bring a more defining, realistic quality to the entire scene, with ample balance between areas of the environment with and without the effect.

Also in terms of shadowing, one thing we did notice was that certain shadows feature a slightly dithered look to them, much like what we were seeing in Mafia II. The effect stands out a little more on the 360, along with the shadowmaps themselves, which look sharper as a result of no QAA blurring. However, it also appears that the PS3’s use of QAA actually provides better blending with regards to the dithering effect - it becomes less obvious as a result.


360


PS3

In motion it is also possible to see some LOD issues with regards to the game’s use of shadowmaps - whereby shadowmaps feature a transitional change from lower to higher quality as you get closer to them - along with LOD issues on both platforms in general. Parts of the environment (textures, geometry, and shadows) in both the far distance and from a few feet away, tend to pop up noticeably on occasion as the engine struggles to load them in time. Though given the large draw distances it has to handle, this is understandable.

There are a few other differences to be found, but nothing major, or even anything that would really account for a clear rendering choice difference. Some shadowing and lighting oddities occasionally pop up – such as missing baked lighting on the PS3, or shadows appearing and popping in and out where they shouldn’t be. But this stuff isn’t noticeable whilst simply playing the game.


360


PS3

In the end Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood is pretty solid on both platforms with the 360 version maintaining that technical edge in certain areas. On the other hand, with the exception of more screen tearing and the inclusion of the texture blurring QAA, the PS3 build is almost a good, having the same baseline assets and tech powering the game.

Even the use of QAA is no real blemish on the experience – calibrating both the game’s brightness level and the gamma on the HDTV makes overall image sharpness fairly close to that of the 360 game in this regard. The extra edge smoothing that quincunx provides can also create a more organic look to the overall visual make up of the game as a whole, with only some scenes looking noticeably worse off than others in terms of texture blur. In any case the PS3 version can be almost equally attractive if set up properly, even if the 360 game's additional sharpness is preferable.

Pretty much every aspect of the game in other areas is a like-for-like match, with only the odd rendering bug to separate them, and of course the 360 version’s lead in overall performance. But even that isn’t quite as commanding as with previous instalments – despite the PS3 build suffering from more noticeable bouts of screen tearing, the general framerate is pretty much in the same ballpark for both versions, with the 360 only fairing a little better in most cases from what we’ve played.

As to whether Ubisoft have delivered on their promise to provide a thoroughly more optimised, de-bugged PS3 experience. I think that as a whole they have. While perhaps not eradicating all of the problems found in previous titles, the overall result is far, far closer than before, with the 360 code no longer having a significant advantage. In short, there could be more work done to improve performance, but otherwise what we have here is a clear step forward in the right direction - a solid result in delivering a decent multi-platform outcome.

Ultimately, ACB can be comfortably recommended across both formats with your purchasing decision more likely coming down to which controller you prefer to use, or which format your friends play online with. The added inclusion of exclusive DLC for PS3 owners is yet another thing to consider, if a choice is indeed available to you. Either way, I’m sure most users will be happy whichever version they opt to go for.

As always, many thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting, and to Cynamite.de for most of the screens. The full gallery can be found here.

Tech Report: Irrational Talks Bioshock Infinite PS3

It’s no surprise to often hear about paired back PS3 ports of the latest new releases. In fact, although the gap has now closed somewhat, it was once a commonplace occurance.

Take the first two Bioshock games for example, rendered in a lower resolution complete with a blur filter and further reduced resolution effects, they where hardly the best advert for Sony’s regularly misunderstood console - our own tech analysis of Bioshock 2 strongly supports this. However, this has not gone un-noticed with series creator, and developer of the upcoming Bioshock Infinite, in which the company’s technical director, Chris Klein helped put forum users at ease.

"we're serious about making sure the PS3 version is great."

"We have no plans to hand off the PS3 version of BioShock Infinite to another studio. In fact, it's not a 'port' at all. We have a much larger team than we did on the original BioShock, so we're doing simultaneous in-house development on the PS3, 360, and PC versions of the game.”

Part of achieving this newfound focus on cross-platform parity comes from using a brand new engine, which has been customised in such a way that allows programmers to approach work on both versions similarly as you would when simply coding for the PS3. It has been said many times before that this approach would see tangible benefits for both platforms, and this certainly seems to be the case.

"We all know that the PS3 is powerful but unique console with its own strengths and challenges. But compared to the PC, the Xbox 360 is challenging too. So instead of declaring a 'lead platform' and porting the game to the others, we've instead changed the game engine so that all platforms look (to a programmer) more like a PS3. This means implementing a task-oriented task processor that assumes a NUMA (non-uniform memory access) design that mimics the PPU/SPU split of the PS3. Writing code this way is more difficult for us, but has a key advantage: it's both optimal for the PS3 *and* gives speed improvements on other platforms due to increased cache coherence and more efficient use of multiple processing units."

“We've built a whole new parallel processing framework (a "job architecture", in programmer lingo) that lets the engine take advantage of as many cores as you can throw at it. This will let us eke out all the power of the PS3 and 360, and also give hardcore PC gamers something to show off their rigs with.”

Chris also talks about how moving to a deferred lighting system was done to help reduce overall CPU overhead, particularly on the PS3’s rather limiting PPU, whilst also shifting certain tasks off of the RSX GPU and to the SPU’s further optimising the engine for increased efficiency.

“This decision (switching to a deferred lighting scheme) was made for many reasons but one important one is that, compared with a Unreal's traditional forward rendering scheme, deferred lighting reduces the amount of work we need to do on the slowest part of the PS3 (the PPU). It also allows us to move work from the GPU to the SPUs, which gives us many options for speeding up rendering on that platform.”

Furthermore, all programmers also have access to both 360 and PS3 dev kits, thus allowing them to test and optimise code as new features are implemented. This means that various graphical and performance issues can be worked on simultainiously throughout development, rather than porting to PS3 and then working out the kinks. Devs can see how things are progressing on a side-by-side basis.

"In terms of production, we're constantly testing our code on the PS3, as it is part of our QA team's daily test plan. All of our programmers have PS3 and 360 dev kits on their desks, and can test on the PS3 just as easily as on the 360. To make sure we find and fix problems as quickly as possible, we have a ‘continuous integration automated build system’ that rebuilds the PS3 version and runs basic tests on it every time a programmer or artist makes a change to the game. It even emails them right away if they break something. In addition, we've also built tools that allow artists and designers to instantly check whether or not their levels will fit in memory on all three platforms, without ever leaving the editor."

With this thoroughly insightful and incredibly revealing post, we can see that Irrational are not only taking the PS3 version of Bioshock Infinite seriously, but like with Criterion games and other such developers, understand that the key to delivering top performance one platform is often to optimise the core engine in a way that benefits all platforms. And by working around parallelising their code, they are doing exactly that.

Previous titles, such as Burnout Paradise, and most recently NFS: Hot Pursuit have shown that this way of approaching multiplatform development actually works, and very well too. So in that respect the next instalment in the Bioshock series looks to be in good hands.

Without a doubt we’ll definitely be keeping you updated on this one. The highly modified tech – based around UE3 – is both interesting as it is visually alluring, and should provide us with another captivating report as more details surface. Hopefully, we'll be able to declare both versions as being basically identical in an eventual, and extremely far off tech analysis of the game. That's certainly what Irrational hope to see.

Review: Call Of Duty: Black Ops (360)

Ignoring reality, Black Ops firmly has its feet solidly in the realms of fantasy: Busting through a set of doors before busting a cap in the head of Fidel Castro is clearly a world away from such endeavours black ops units actually get up to. But then again, we never know. Certainly not with a team designated to perform operations that no upstanding military commander would authorise - at least not officially, and that is what makes Treyarch’s latest an interesting tale.

So this instalment in the award-winning Call Of Duty series once again further allows itself to be larger than life, with intense set pieces and non-stop gunfights for terrain supremacy, funnelling you along corridors in what looks like an FPS gallery shooter with firm homage’s to yet more Hollywood movies. Then again, this is exactly what Modern Warfare turned the series into. But even before, it was heavily branching down the path of arcade realism. Black Ops simply lives up to this premise. It’s here to please those grown accustom to the series trademark style, and unrelenting ballet of bullets.

It’s not that I particularly mind this forte of action. In fact I rather like it. The balance of near constant shooting, with brief pauses in between to regenerate health, commandeer a fixed-turret machine gun, or in order to quickly take a breather and assess the situation is exactly what makes this series tick. However, Black Ops also shows that the now well-worn formula works even better when combined with a more coherent storyline, and a focus on individual characters, however small, rather than being an all out mish-mash of convoluted James Bond-esque set pieces and mindless exposition.


Here, you spend most of your time in the shoes of John Mason, a Black Ops team member that now finds himself captured and being interrogated about events from past missions. Hidden behind a smoky glass window, an un-named spook attempts to extract vital parts of your service history, which are presented through various flashbacks as you succumb to the pain inflicted. These flashbacks comprise the game’s long sea of missions, taking you through Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, and back again in a heightened Cold War era tale of misinformation and distrust.

Essentially, through these flashbacks Black Ops tracks your progress taking part in everything from the apparent assassination of Castro, and discovery of a chemical weapon – the potent never gas, Nova 6 – right the way through to hunting down the Russia generals and Ex Nazi commander responsible for the new terrorist threat.

At first the story seems somewhat disjointed, almost feeling dazed and confused like John Mason in the chair he finds himself strapped down to. However, as more of Mason’s memories come flooding back to the surface, and as the elaborate tale unfolds as a whole, everything becomes clear as day, with Black Ops keeping you gripped with its focus on giving away brief snippets of information via short and snappy cut-scenes.


To that end the single player campaign is a more tightly reigned in affair compared to MW2, with emphasis on big budget Michael Bay style set pieces, and a near constant barrage of action. It is never quite as overdone as some of the things found in Infinity Ward’s last COD title, with the larger events feeling more realistic in a warped sense of the word. Plus, the game tries to keep a balance between the large explosive encounters and quieter missions that are based around stealth or a brief moment of tactical combat.

Outside of these ebb and flow elements to the action, the straight forward shooting is broken up even more with several vehicle sections whereby you take control of helicopters, boats, and a tank in bringing about some stylised destruction. What’s cool about these, is that some have been deliberately influenced, and dare I say, going as far as ripping off various Vietnam flicks of the past thirty years of so with the use of licensed soundtracks and iconic confrontations – it all makes the fictional story, and the combat more natural when compared to some of things the series has thrown at you before (the nuke in COD4 anyone?).


Black Ops also takes the time to stretch out the battlefield even further than before, providing players with larger, more open spaces in which to take part in elaborate battles that have to be handled a little differently. Like with the rest of the game, there are always a few carefully orchestrated set pieces to be found amongst the endless amounts of enemies to kill.

However polished most of the action is throughout – and it is a superb, well-constructed affair - Treyarch don’t always seem to get it right all the time. And in too many of these open battlefield sections the old case of respawning enemies rears its ugly head once again. Ultimately, there’s little you can do other than to shoot down a few them before making a run for it to the next checkpoint, thus stopping the endless flow of potential cannon fodder.


The first Vietnam stage is home to the most obvious, and easily the worse implementation of this in the entire game, whereby, as you are making your way down an embankment to the trenches below over the horizon literally dozens of enemies continuously head your way. Sure, you can push over a few barraels and set them alight to keep odds stacked in your favour. But if you don’t… its run and gun until you reach the next section.

This is perhaps the main difference between Black Ops and Modern Warefare 2 – other than having a more succinct and character driven narrative – in which the game feels like its relying on an old, thoroughly worn out tactic to deliver a challenge that could’ve been handled far more intelligently. It’s no deal breaker. And other than a few short spells of frustration here and there, the campaign is handled with a lot more reserve and direction than expected.


Black Ops’ single player expedition through the cold war era is firmly solid and handled with minute precision. Cool touches like licensed music and the inclusion of real life figures such as president John F Kennedy add weight to the proceedings, whilst the gameplay is cut from the same cloth as previous Call Of Duty’s, almost feeling a little too comfortable in its own skin.

As you’ve probably guessed, progression isn’t a word Black Ops understands, nor heeds to at this point. But then again it doesn’t really need to, not when the overall game is as polished as it is. The gameplay, although tried and tested, perhaps even a little stale, is still as involving as ever, and the more focused nature of the campaign helps it shine through any excursions of monotony. As Modern Warfare 2 demonstrated: being bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. And this is one cliché that Black Ops thankfully manages to avoid.

Like with all Call Of Duty titles though, the campaign is just for starters. It could be argued that the multiplayer – especially online – is firmly on the charge, delivering an automatic spray of replay value well after the cold war conflict of the single player outing has happily exhausted its supply of conscripts. Black Ops then, doesn’t disappoint. With a range of inspired new game modes, and a return of World At War’s fanatically popular ‘Zombies’ Treyarch again have shown command of a franchise they originally were criticised for taking the reins of.


It’s no surprise then to learn that online and multiplayer is exactly where the franchise has taken its biggest steps forward. New modes, and a currency system of sorts expands and complements COD’s trademark use of perks and the established procedure of ranking up as you play, with the ability for greater levels of customisation amongst players whilst adding variety in an increasingly familiar environment.

The use of the new COD points for one, allows you to purchase weapons, clothes, and abilities in the form of perks instead of simply ranking up to get such items. Interestingly this adds a lot more variety to the proceedings without the expense of making the experience feel un-balanced. It’s pretty coo to gain new things more quickly, rather than having to battle it out in endless online matches in order to rank up to do so.

You can even gamble away these points in a series of free-for-all modes called Wager Matches, in which a variety of game types are available. Highlights include One in the Chamber, whereby each player is only given a pistol with one bullet, a knife, and three lives, and Gun Game, in which players start off with a pistol and are given a new weapon with each kill. Getting knifed gives you back the previous weapon, while getting a new one means that you’ll have to quickly adapt to using weapons you may not be very adept at using.


Also as mentioned earlier the Zombies mode from COD: World At War makes its riumpant return, but this time is expanded upom with several maps, and the ability to play as either of John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, and Fidel Castro while battling Zombies in The Pentagon, which is pretty cool to say the least. Four players can play online in co-op, whilst there is the legacy two-player split screen option for those who want to be in a room with ‘real’ people.

If there’s anything to complain about, it’s that the game’s matchmaking service is a little slow, and the online co-op campaign of WAW is strangely absent. Besides that Black Ops takes some large strides forward in delivering the deepest, most satisfying range of multiplayer modes to date. The combination of perks, rankings, with COD points and a range of excitingly geniuos new modes helps keep it right up there along with the awesomeness that was the original Modern Warfare online.


Unusual as it first may seem, it appears that Call Of Duty Black Ops well and truly does deliver. There is always a risk of creating an instalment that fails to differentiate itself enough from past games, or one which strays a little two far from the crows nest. However, Black Ops does neither. Instead, it balances a fine line with a single-player campaign that simply treads old ground in a more coherent manner, and a multiplayer in which it mixes up the familiar helping to keep it exciting.

And overall, as complete package there’s simply no doubt that Treyarch have done a reasonably stellar job here. The level of polish, and expertly crafted, fast-paced, visceral action takes a page right out of the Infinity Ward rulebook, but doing it better than MW2, and with even more style. It can be said with confidence that the studio should no longer be looked at under the cloud of IW’s past successes, but instead as a solid team on their own, with their own take of what Call Of Duty should be.

VERDICT: 8/10

Tech Report: A Look At The L.A Noire Trailer

Originally intended as simply a PS3 exclusive release, L.A Noire is now heading to both PS3 and Xbox 360 later next year. With Red Read Dedemption slowly fading out of gamers minds, and with another GTA not on the cards for over a year, attention has begun to turn to Rockstar’s barely talked about crime thriller, L.A Noire.

A few days ago a brand new trailer was released for the game. It appeared to be put together from in-game engine cut-scenes, running in real-time and presenting audiences with a firm impression of what’s to come. Well, it terms of the characters and atmosphere at least – the gameplay at this point, lurks away somewhere in Rockstar’s gritty 1930’s and 40’s inspired world, yet to be privy to a public spectacle.


Check out the HD trailer here

While the trailer hardly looks visually outstanding on first impressions – or on repeat viewing for that matter – one element does stand out above the rest: the game’s incredible facial animation system and use of some stellar motion capture work - the very reason for us taking the time out to deliver this short technical look.

Having convincing lip-syncing, backed up by decent voice acting are two such requirements for any title whose focus is on providing an intriguing and potentially gripping narrative tale. Though without adequate motion capturing, and considerably polished facial responses, all this goes to waste. Just look at the likes of Alan Wake, or Heavy Rain, both are titles that loose some of their emotional impact due to either poor voice acting, bad lip-syncing, or buggy motion capture work.

One or two of these elements may make for a compelling enough experience, but not an exceptional one. And it is exactly this which L.A Noire hops to rectify.


Looking at the trailer, and we can see that Rockstar have indeed taken the time in not only providing some rather excellent voice work, but also in meticulously crafting some of the most sophisticated facial animation tech we’ve seen in any game so far. The way facial muscles move as characters are speaking, and the subtle changes in normal mapping as muscles expand and then contract (around lips and mouth), at the most basic level, all go along way to adding a sense of believability to the proceedings, that you are in fact watching actual characters coming alive on screen, and not simply polygon models.

From a technical point of view, this singular element is by far the most advanced, though is the only one to really impress as a whole. The superb blend in normal mapping offsets the sometimes potentially stiff looking nature of pure geometry movement, thus allowing smoother animation as a result. More detail in the way in which individual elements of the face reacts are clearly shown, along with an impressive use of normal maps working in tandem with the motion capture animation.


Outside of the solid motion capture work and stand-out facial animation system, the rest of the tech powering the game appears to be far less impressive. Although, the washed out and reduced-contrast nature of the art direction seems to be the main cause of this. The style presented here in L.A Noire is faithful to the unique look of similarly themed movies of the 1930’s and 40’s; that is to say that contrast has been intentionally adjusted resulting in a slightly washed out look to the game in general.

However, we can also see that skin shaders and layered shader effects in general, aren’t terribly impressive. In fact they seem to be quite basic compared to more advanced implementations as seen in the recent Call Of Duty Black Ops. L.A Noire appears to be using only basic texturing, plus a normal map and colour map for its character faces, with noticeable levels of specular highlighting being distinctly absent - the matt, almost shiny look is being caused by the normal mapping in reaction with the game's lighting model.

Oddly, there is evidence of screen-space ambient occlusion in these screens, though the effect does little to bring a large amount of additional depth to the scene compared to most titles that use it. Usually SSAO is implemented in order to expand the impact shadowing has throughout a game, bringing more depth, and indeed detail to the scene. However, in L.A Noire it looks like the level of contrast defeats that slightly. Like in the 360 version of Kane & Lynch 2, its effects go partially un-noticed, other than some artefacting revealing its presence.

Perhaps implementation of SSAO is being used to balance out the low contrasted nature of the game as a whole, delivering more shadowing depth where there would otherwise be even less. This would certainly explain why we aren’t seeing more three-dimensionality in overall image composition. Or maybe, it’s that the effect is only being used subtly to complement the look the artists are going for.


Moving on, and the actual framebuffer itself looks to be native 720p, but contained in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio (1280x540), with black boarders at the top and bottom of the screen. It is these boarders which account for the 540 horizontal res that you are seeing – actual gameplay will of course be presented in full screen, so we expect that a full 1280x720 image will be available for the duration.

There’s no scaling of any kind going on, despite the blurry nature of the screens on this page. Instead, the loss in IQ is caused by video compression artefacts, which not only affect edges but pixels across the entire scene.


Outside of the obvious technical murmurings, there’s no indication of platform the montage from the trailer is comprised from. Originally L.A Noire was conceived as a PS3 exclusive, with a 360 release announced only months ago, so it is pretty likely that the footage is indeed taken from the Sony version.

Depending on when development shifted from being solely a single platform affair to becoming a full multi-platform project, we could be looking at a game potentially leading on the PS3. This would mean that parity between both formats should, in theory be reasonably close, without noticeable cuts being made to the PS3 version in terms of resolution or even alpha buffers - which are likely to be used more sparingly in any case of PS3 leading. Uncharted 2 for example, displays relatively few heavy alpha-based scenarios in comparison to COD: Black Ops, and Killzone 2 and 3 both use lower res buffers with additional blending for better integration.

Again, this is pure speculation at this point - the trailer could well be using the 360 build for all we know. And in terms of leading on PS3, that sometimes can be used to boost performance of the 360 version as well, with a greater emphasis on optimising code and an increased use of parallelisation delivering a visually better looking game as a result.


Overall, L.A Noire is looking pretty interesting as a cinematic title, if not as a technical showcase for high-levels of decent motion-capture work, and impressive facial animation. While the rest of the graphical make up, from the very little we’ve seen, looks at this point to be distinctly under whelming, one can’t help but feel this was a stylistic choice more than anything else, in-keeping with the world and imagery the developers are trying to create.

And in that respect L.A Noire looks to be quite intriguing. We’ve seen many games that try, and indeed fail to pull off real cinematic brilliance – Alan Wake and Heavy Rain to name but two – although Rockstar’s track record remain distinctly un-blemished in this regard. Both Red Dead Redemption, and especially GTA IV previously showcased the skill and command the company has over delivering such experiences (different team, but still), and with L.A Noire they certainly look like they could be doing the same again.

Time will tell however, but we’ll definitely be keeping our eye on this one.

Tech Analysis: Call Of Duty: Black Ops (360 vs PS3)

It’s no surprise to hear that the Call Of Duty series currently leads the way in high-precision first-person shooters, with low latency controls and a framerate to die for, where near instant feedback and overall fluidity makes it one of the best gaming experiences around. And all of this comes with the decision to aim, and achieve a blistering sixty frames per-second. The sheer advantage that this bump in smoothness provides cannot be underestimated, and seeing this on primarily a console release is outstanding to say the least.

Of course, with such a high level of fluidity to maintain (something that is utterly essential for the whole experience to work) some compromises have obviously been made. And to that end, sacrifices in overall rendering resolution have taken place in order to accommodate this, along with reduced lighting and shader effects compared to other comparable games.

But despite this, the series is still home to lavish visual spectacle: a myriad of particle effects often don the screen, and a whole lot of work has gone into creating a highly detailed, albeit often closed off world in which to best demonstrate the trade-off between all out graphical exposition and a blindingly smooth framerate.

And with Call Of Duty: Black Ops, the action is even more intense, the effects are even more spic in scale, so parity between platforms then isn’t quite on the same level as with MW2 - compromises have definitely been made in getting the game up and running on the PS3 without cutting back on the core assets used. Though when you consider the additional graphical upgrades the engine has seen, the differences, compromises, whatever you want to call them, are completely understandable, if not unavoidable.


Like with previous instalments, the engine powering Black Ops is clearly engineered around reaching and maintaining regular 60fps performance. And like with those titles, it is no surprise to find that the game is presented in sub-HD on both platforms, with the drop in resolution offset with good scaling and use of anti-aliasing, following the same blueprint as every other COD title.

Black Ops renders in the familiar 1040x608 resolution on the 360, while the PS3 build gets a further downgrade to the even more lowly 960x544. Both versions benefit from having 2x multisampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) help smooth over the upscaling process, reducing jagged edges at the same time.

The change in rendering resolution on the PS3 may at first seem a little surprising. But Black Ops has also had some noticeable upgrades in shader effects and in its use of alpha-based particles, both of which put a heavier strain on the engine than ever before. In essence, getting better performance with more in the way of effects means sacrificing the overall pixel workload - something PS3 owners aren’t exactly unfamiliar too.

Looking at the screenshot above, you can easily see that the 360 game commands a slight, but noticeable lead in sharpness. The reduction in both horizontal and vertical resolution clearly impacts on overall image quality, resulting in a slightly blurrier look, and fuzzy edges being present on far-away objects. However, in motion the two look far more alike, and from some 5 feet away on a 32” screen, the PS3 game only looks slightly softer. The quality of the scaling is still incredibly good, and compared to the PC version you can see that both PS3 and 360 builds are fairly close to each other.

Despite the sub-HD nature of the framebuffer, Black Ops still looks relatively clean and reasonably sharp as a whole in motion. While many have stated that the game looks worse in this regard than MW2, this is actually down to Treyarch’s dark and gritty art style more than the technical make-up of the game itself. The clinical nature of Inifinity Ward’s own art is replaced with something partially more organic, rougher in appearance. On the 360 build the actual resolution, and most of the underlying tech is presented in the same way, bar the obvious improvements.

As already mentioned, the use of MSAA helps in mitigating intrusive upsclaing artefacts, whilst the edge smoothing it provides deals with most jaggies fairly effectively. There is still some shimmering that occurs in the trees and surrounding foliage in many environments - naturally thin stripes of geometry, such as fences and powerlines are affected, suffering from sub-pixel aliasing. Although, this is nothing to be overly concerned about.


Thankfully, much of the game remains almost like for like in most areas. As with MW2, texture detail for example, is pretty much identical across the board, with only a few genuinely lower res textures appearing on the PS3.

Most of the differences apparent in screenshots actually stem from a texture streaming issue on the PS3, whereby mip-map transitions are a little behind. The actual assets used are for the most part, identical, with only a few lower res textures to be found here and there in places. You can clearly see this when both versions are running side by side, where these texture transitions are also visible on the 360, but not quite so often.

On the other hand, in terms of texture filtering, we can see that the 360 build features slightly better AF (anisontropic filtering) at all times, in keeping with the change introduced in MW2.

Previously, on past COD titles it was the PS3 versions that always had a filtering advantage owing to the RSX GPU having more texturing units than 360’s Xenos. Effectively, this meant that high levels of AF were virtually free on Sony’s system. Whereas on 360 similar quality was only obtainable by using a combination of AF plus a bilinear or trilinear solution. This is now reversed in Black Ops, as it was in MW2. And as a result detail is indeed visible for further into the distance on the 360.


The use of sub-HD framebuffers has always been a staple for the COD series on consoles, and the new texture streaming tech introduced in MW2 clearly helps both versions maintain a similar level of high quality artwork throughout. However, in terms of particle and alpha effects the 360 usually sees a near continuous advantage. The exception of course was with Modern Warfare 2, which was the first game in the series to even things up with equal size buffers across both platforms.

Looking at Black Ops, and things seem to have taken a step back. The increase in smoke, particles, and fire effects all eat into each systems available bandwidth, and with the PS3 having less of that particular resource available, it means that a few cut backs have been made in order to sustain overall performance.

On the PS3 all these effects are rendered in a lower resolution to the rest of the frame. Whereas on the other hand, 360 owners get the same level of graphical fidelity on these objects as seen in past COD titles – full res buffers. The differences can be seen above for those interested: you can clearly see that the effects look softer and less defined in the PS3 game due their resolution being reduced.

Of course this is a common trade-off for owners of many AAA PS3 titles. Rather than sacrificing the amount of objects being rendered on-screen, developers usually choose to either: render certain objects in a lower resolution to the rest of the frame, or to render them in a half-resolution of sorts using A2C for blending, introducing shimmery screen-door artefacts into the mix.

For Black Ops it is the former we are seeing, and the choice made in terms of preserving quality was definitely the right one. The developers have taken the time to carefully blend all alpha effects in the PS3 game order to ensure that as little shimmering or aliasing takes place as possible. Aside from the odd bit of pixelation, in motion (at regular viewing distances) these differences are likely to go un-noticed for many people.


Looking at performance, when it comes to a Call Of Duty game, maintaining 60fps is absolutely paramount, and the sacrifices made with regards to both the overall framebuffer, and the use of lower res alpha effects are an essential part of trying to achieve that goal.

In effect, without that 60fps update COD would be just another arcadey military shooter with large set pieces, and the tendency to rip-off various action movies/famous war flicks. So, it goes without saying that the reduced resolution on both platforms, and lower res effects on the PS3 are a worthy trade-off in meeting that goal.

To that end, on the 360 Black Ops manages to largely hit its target 60fps for much of the time, but with frequent drops throughout the entire single-player campaign. Most of these drops are so subtle in nature, that you may not notice them. And even when the game noticeably approaches framerates in the 30-40fps mark, the action always seems smooth and incredibly fluid.

Controller latency does indeed increase slightly, but not to detrimental levels – the action always feels smooth even when the framerate is noticeably running below the desired 60fps.

In terms of the larger framerate drops, they tend to occur in scenes with high levels of environmental detail, or when there is heavy use of alpha going on. In these kinds of scenarios the game regularly drops down well below the 60fps mark, though it maintains for the most part, an update above that of the more common 30fps.

Moving on to the PS3, and we can see the same trend occurring through the first few levels. Black Ops starts off confidently, running at the targeted 60fps with relative ease, although this begins to drop considerably in areas with more detail putting a greater load on system resources. In almost like for like scenarios the PS3 game perhaps lingers behind by around 10 to 20fps or so, in a rough estimation of what I am seeing.

Outside of the gameplay, and things are even more pronounced - during cut-scenes the 360 game runs at a near constant 60fps, with very little slowdown whatsoever. On PS3 however, the framerate has a tendency to drop regularly, but not always in a smooth fashion – the cut scenes often stutter, almost like the game’s framerate was bouncing up and down in small increments.

Despite the differences in performance during gameplay, both versions end up feeling smooth and extremely fluid, just with the 360 game commanding a noticeable lead on many occasions. The PS3 version, even during times of slow down, still feels very responsive, and the drops down to 30fps aren’t quite as bad as they sound. However, neither version manages to lock down a constant 60fps, with regular dips happening according to the action on screen. In this respect MW2 is clearly superior in this regard.

On the plus side both versions are solidly v-synced and exhibit no screen tearing of any kind, which is in itself impressive, if not another trademark of the series highly optimised 60fps game engine.


Outside of performance, and we can see that the overall rendering engine has seen some considerable upgrades for Black Ops. Most noticeably there is an increase in use of dynamic lighting and shadowing, first expanded upon greatly in MW2, and the use of better surface shaders on the characters. Normal mapping also looks to have been refined slightly as well.

Dynamic lighting and shadowing is now more abundant on both versions. Gunfire, explosions, and fire etc, light up the surrounding environment to a larger degree than before, whilst use of dynamic, and self-shadowing creates a greater level of depth to the scene. Examples can be found all through the game - the fan in the bar at the beginning, and the rotating emergency lights on the ceiling in another mission showcase these improvements early on, whilst the second Vietnam stage (set in the jungle and caves) demonstrates this effortlessly.

In terms of shadowing, the 360 build benefits from not only high-resolution shadows, but also better shadow filtering as well. By contrast shadows are rendered in a lower resolution on the PS3, often looking rather blurry, and occasionally quite pixelated. Like with the use of lower resolution particle and alpha effects, the reduction in shadow quality has been done to save on memory bandwidth, thus allowing the full range of graphical improvements to be included without cutting back on their scope and visual range.

The only exception to this appears to be with the amount of bloom lighting on screen. Bloom has been paired back on both versions from earlier COD titles, and in Black Ops the effect has been even more reduced on the PS3. However, this appears to be more down to gamma and contrast differences between both versions. Although, even when adjusting the in-game brightness slider, and the brightness control on my calibrated HDTV, I still wasn’t able to get a complete like for like match.

This gamma/brightness issue made the PS3 version of the game appear slightly more washed out than the 360 version. It seems that even when calibrtation to both the game's brightness and the HDTV settings have taken place, overall contrast is still reduced on the PS3.

Other than that, both versions are largely like for like in pretty much every other area. Resolution aside there’s very little that has been actively cut back on, instead the developers have preferred to render in a lower resolution on PS3 and maintain the amount of visual spectacle seen in the 360 build.


In terms of multi-platform development, achieving parity on both platforms whilst pushing the tech forwards even further on, Treyarch’s effort here is indeed commendable despite not reaching IW’s high point with MW2. The engine itself has seen a number of carefully implemented, and thoroughly skilled deployments, from an obvious increase in the use of dynamic lighting and shadowing, to the presence of more advanced skin shaders and overall character modelling. The tech is solid, as it is impressive.

Perhaps the only thing which doesn’t have the same level of impact, is with regards to the overall quality of the PS3 version of the game, which does indeed suffer from the traditional lowering of FB resolution and alpha effects buffers. That said, ‘suffering’ is maybe too strong a word to use, as whatever such improvements were implemented, every one of those are stretching memory requirements on both systems – it just so happens that overall memory constraints (especially bandwidth) is simply more of an issue for PS3 development in general.

But for a game that is so doggedly built around 360’s high bandwidth, fast EDRAM, to see pretty much all of the improvements on the PS3, even if they are in a lower resolution is an impressive feat nonetheless. The reduced screen resolution is one thing that does disappoint – it is indeed noticeable. And the framerate, which has taken a bigger hit than before, could be substantially better.

That said, Black Ops is still well worth picking up on the PS3, and for many, most of the graphical differences will absolutely fail to register. If you have access to both platforms however, then there is no contest: the 360 version, with its higher resolution FB and effects, smoother framerate and sharper image is the one to get.

In conclusion, Call of Duty: Black Ops is a worthy combination of graphical compromises interwoven with impressive underlying tech, that which, for the most part comes out shining incredibly well as a whole. Given the make-up of the engine, and the load being pushed on screen, I couldn’t have seen it going any other way with regards to platform parity. But at least the end result is overly solid and well balanced - the baseline tech and assets haven’t been cut back on.

As ever thanks go out to AlStrong for counting those pixels, and to Cynamite.de for the screens.

Editorial: Having Space To Kinect

Given the nature of how Sony's Move operates in small, enclosed environments so admirably, I never had any large concerns about having enough suitable space in your living room, bedroom etc, in order to comfortably use Kinect. However, it appears that there is indeed some truth in the initial rumours that the device would require nearly 8ft of floor clearance in which to perform without issue.

Most sites have already delivered their verdicts on MS’s supposed Wii stomping trumps card, and although the vast majority of final press has been rather positive, there is one issue that could seemingly affect the vast majority of people looking to jump into controllerless gaming – the issue of making enough room to get Kinect up and running successfully.


Most complaints about the Kinect will no doubt fall onto deaf ears, especially where the mainstream are concerned – they’re not exactly going to notice the sometimes heavy amount of input lag whilst having fun with the kids or the girlfriend. These are, by their very nature, hardcore concerns, concerns in which the core gaming audience are likely to take offence. However, when questions are raised about the space in which Kinect needs to operate optimally, or in any case, to operate at all, then this question about space becomes a very broad concern indeed.

Microsoft have specified that for a single player Kinect requires around 6ft of clear floor space, and for two players a rather large 8ft of space. Note that I mentioned clear floor space – any large objects in the room can, and will on occasions provide problems for the device. It never fails to recognise actual players from background objects, but issues come into play as soon as those objects are actively brought into the foreground.

So, does mean that Kinect won’t work in a small room with less than the recommended space? Well, not really – you can still get the device to work in more cramped conditions, though just not quite as well as you might have expected. In these sorts of situations its operation is far from ideal, and in effect the closer you are to creating an ideal scenario for Kinect to work, the better it is going to function.

The thing is, this really is a problem for homes in the UK, and indeed in many parts of the word outside the United States, where the average room size is no where near likely to provide such floor clearance in a best case scenario, let alone an average one. In my both mine, and my friends bedroom alone you can barely get more than 4ft of clearance without walking into an object of some kind. Be that a coffee table, the Xbox 360, the PS3, or even the HDTV itself. Moving on to my living room, and although things are indeed more than just a tad better, the set-up is far from ideal.

I’m looking at just about getting 6ft away from the TV to the two arm chairs and coffee table situated behind me when standing in front of the telly. It’s just about enough to get Kinect up and running, perhaps working mostly without issue. That is, until perhaps you make a jump forward a little too far, or move just one or two steps closer to the TV when playing. Now, when doing so the distance of available free space is noticeably going to decrease fast, and in turn the Kinect is going to start telling me exactly that, with its plainly descriptive “please step back” message.

The result is that some reorganisation is required in order to prep things out for Kinect. In such a room, it is relatively easy: move back the armchairs and table, push back the TV slightly to the right, thus allowing you to open up more space on all four sides, and bingo, you’ve got a room that is Kinect ready. If of course you are willing to make such accommodations.

Then again you may not even have to in order to get the device set-up to work, even if somewhat haphazardly for brief moments of full-body, motion tracked fun.

As a test case I set up the Kincet at work, in a very cramped staff room. There is just about 5ft between the sofa and the large projection screen TV, with the Kinect situated on top of the telly. In front, and on the floor there is an Xbox 360 and an electrical heater, plus two boxes stacked just beside and in front the sofa. On the right-hand side of the TV there is a fairly large rack standing several feet high, full of bags, clothes and more consoles. And to the left, a solid wall with the odd bits and bobs lying about on a shelf of sorts.

Cramped is a mild way of describing it, and although the area could be cleared, it was being used at that point in time. Ultimately, it made for a rather good initial testing ground.

Even with all this clutter about, Kinect still managed to work as it should do for small, extended periods of the time. The downside is that frequent-ish distconections are none too rare, and during an initial twenty-minute session, I had to allow Kinect to rescan me mid-game on three separate occasions. Each time this happened I was presented with a message telling me to stand back, or move closer to the screen, waving my hand to get the device's attention. Suffice to say, doing none of the aforementioned actually worked. Instead Kinect simply rescanned me, putting me back into the game within half a minute or so, allowing me to continue where I had left off.

Certainly, reports of household furnature being in the playing area interfering with Kinect’s body tracking definitely seem to be true, and all too obvious a problem. The main issue however, isn’t the lack of space, but in being almost utterly helpless when the device loses track of you completely. You simply have to wait for it to re-scan and re-track you again, almost as if it is bringing itself up to speed. Annoyingly, this will both confuse and irritate all those who don’t know, understand, or even care how Kinect works. It’s simply a trial by fire, with you having to move stuff around until the sensor is happy with your set-up.

Interestingly, when I first set-up Kinect, it did detect that I had a space suitable for which a single player could actively play. There was no warning that its performance would be hindered by the various objects dotted around the room, other than a generic one indicating that the space should be clear and free of any obstacles. Basically, it only seems to give you feedback when there is a serious lack of space available.

Saying that, after moving a few boxes out of the way, and moving forward slightly, I did manage to prevent any more unusually frequent dropouts from occuring during gameplay, although not all – enclosed spaces still confuse Kinect. Thankfully, the experience was more than just marginally improved. Just don’t even try to have more than one player on the go at the same time – it simply won’t work. At least, not without being completely broken.

Now, to put things into perspective, it is highly unlikely that MS hasn’t tested Kinect working in a variety of different environments; some small, some large, and some which don’t quite fit the bill of either. However, that is not to say that the nature of the games, the device, and how they work, will still dictate the amount of space required regardless of how much testing is done.

It’s self-evident in just how the technology works in giving you control over what is happening on screen, that it requires a fair amount of space to do this. Unlike the PS Move, Kinect is doing full body tracking for most of its games, or at the very least an approximation of that facility. The result is that the device needs to see your whole body at all times, whilst also assessing your position in a 3D space. It also needs to work out how far away you are from itself, and from other objects in the room. This is the key to getting proper 1:1 tracking working correctly. It actively needs to be able to track you at all times cleanly and fairly precisely. There’s no additional LED marked to help with this.

Adding in two people into the mix (you will want to play with someone else – that’s the whole point) and these problems are magnified slightly, sometimes considerably. Now Kinect requires both players to have their own starting space, a place in which both people can be scanned into the device for use in-game, and of course play without colliding with the other person. Although, it is possible for both players to stray into each other’s space – the Kinect occasionally glitches when this happens, but soon finds its feet and recovers admirably. The problem lies in making nearly a third of extra clear space in which to accommodate two players, whilst maybe allowing other family members to watch from the background.

And with something like Kinect, you’ll definitely want to. Kinect is designed as a multiplayer device. It’s something that the whole family will want to be around. Or at least that’s the general idea. And it’s one that is seemingly backed up by the competitive nature of some of the games, in which human competition far outweighs the meagre excitement of going up against the CPU.

In that respect then, you’ll more than likely need to re-organise your room in order to get Kinect working without issue. One of my work collegues had to do exactly that in order to accommodate him and his missus in what he describes as a ‘fairly large living room’. That 8ft certainly doesn’t magically present itself, that’s for sure. And, I can certaily see many people pulling the “I don’t have the extra two feet required” in order to return what MS are billing as the most user-friendly gaming experience yet.

This definitely isn’t something that you’d want to be happening, especially with an unsuspecting punter that simply doesn’t read IGN, or any one of the mainstream gaming sites. So, in that respect, this issue of space isn’t exactly the kind of coverage MS will want. And the whole notion of having difficulty getting Kinect up and running smoothly; surely that goes against the very naturte of what they are trying to achieve – a gaming platform so ingrained into generating mainstream play, that traditional core gaming titles may not even be possible on the device.

That said, there is much of the Kinect experience that isn’t particularly user friendly at the moment. The uncomfortably limited control of the Xbox dashboard, and accessing the Kinect menu via a gesture system in-game to name but two. However, these and other such teething problems are likely to be well ironed out as time goes by, and the core software improves. What will be an ongoing concern is the actual environment in which Kinect will be used. And in that case, it’s simply down to the user to make sure they can

All I can say is that Kinect works - it is the real deal, when of course giving it the optimal environment in which to do so. The motion tracking isn’t always 1:1, and the amount of latency is noticeably large on some titles. But that doesn’t take away from the software delivering a sense of emersion absent in so many Wii and PlayStation Move titles.

If you have the room for it, MS’s take on controllerless gaming (the only one in fact) is a mixture of intriguing potential and missed opportunity. It isn’t perfect... far from it in fact. And concerns given its operation in even a slightly cramped, but minimum specified 6ft of space is likely to be an ongoing issue. But beyond all that, it is still a lot of fun to play.

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, Kinect will work in a wide range of environments, rooms of most shapes and sizes, with even the most strangely unappealing of layouts. Unfortunately, how well it will work is another matter. And all that will clearly depend on how close you actually come in meeting the requirements on the box. There’s only so much the technology can do, for the rest you need to give it a little helping hand. Though for some, that might be easier said than done.