Saturday, 1 January 2011

Retro Tech Analysis: Virtua Racing (MD vs 32X)

Well, here’s the final part of our Christmas/New Year holiday coverage. Having mostly been put together after hours outside of a busy period at work this week, you’ll find a comprehensive and in-depth head-to-head analysis of Sega’s Virtua Racing.

I guess you could have see it coming from our earlier post. Regardless, it's certainly been fun putting it together. Anyway, we’ll be back after this sometime next week for the start of our regular 2011 updates, but for now, have a Happy New Year and enjoy!


Virtua Racing wasn’t the first 3D racing game to properly make use of polygons in the make up of both its cars and environments, although it did firmly set the president for all other arcade racers to follow. With a decidedly unique approach to realism – slidey handling mixed with spin-outs and flip-over crashes – it not only played differently to similar sprite-based games, but also delivered that 3D ‘wow’ factor by giving players four different viewpoints to choose from, and three highly detailed tracks to immerse you in its world.

It was also one of the first fully featured 3D titles to arrive on home consoles, battling against the likes of Starwing and Stunt Race FX on the Super NES for domination of the early 3D arms race before it really kicked off with the 32bit generation.

Sega first produced a version of the VR for the MegaDrive, using a similar method of in-cart enhancement as Nintendo, courtesy of the SVP (Sega Vitual Processor) chip - which handled all the geometry calculations and drew all the polygons for the game - but then transformed the idea into the fledgling 32X, a full blown add-on for the aging 16bit MD, along with a expanded release of the game, dubbed Virtua Racing Deluxe, in time for the machine’s launch in November 1994.

Today we shall be looking at both the MD and 32X ports of the game, comparing and contrasting the two for a special retro tech analysis of sorts. However, in order to capture screenshots for this feature, and to compare direct performance via (sadly unpublished) videos, we’ve had to use emulation for the basis of our analysis rather than actual hardware. Thankfully, in order to keep any rendering errors, and artificial performance anomalies to the bare minimum, we are running both games using Kega Fusion - the most accurate of all the MD emulators out there - with settings that closely represent the game running on original hardware.

So without further ado, let’s get on with it.


MD


32X

Like with the latest titles on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, framebuffer resolution was as important back then when it came to image sharpness and clarity as it is now, with many games boasting a range of differing native resolutions. Virtua Racing is no exception. Rendering in 256x240 on the MD and 320x240 on the 32X, both versions feature the same overall 240p vertical resolution with the MD sacrificing some horizontal resolution for performance reasons.

However, both versions are also clipped to a 192 vertical resolution, with black boarders being used for the remainder of pixels rendered on screen. This means, that like in SF2:SCE, there are small boarders visible at the top and bottom of the screen that appear in PAL and NTSC versions of the game – the boarders are just larger in PAL 50hz mode owing to the extra unused screen resolution on display.

As expected there is also no anti-aliasing to be found - a visual effect which didn’t appear in home console graphics architectures until the debut of the N64 in late 1996. Instead polygons are presented in one of their rawest forms, flat shaded with pixel edges clearly being visible throughout.


MD


32X

In screenshots, the difference in native resolution comes across with one image looking smaller than the other. Although, on the TV this manifests itself with the MD version looking softer than the 32X game. As there is no scaling involved at any point, it’s instead up to the TV to manually stretch out the picture to the correct aspect ratio of the screen, which is done on a CRT by the electron bean scanning the lesser amount of pixels across a greater number of phosphors without any digital processing.

Softness is also increased by the MD version’s use of heavy dithering, used to simulate more colours on screen at once than what the system is capable of. Essentially, the MD game uses 15 colours for the polygon layer – 4bit pixels paired as single 8bit pixels, whilst the 32X version uses the system’s direct colour mode with 15-bit RGB and 16bpp in order to deliver 256 plus colours on screen at once. Using this mode, its actually possible for the machine to display up to 32,000 colours on-screen. Although, VRD doesn't do this.


MD


32X

As a result VR on the MD uses lots of selective dithering for representing many different shades of geometry for both the scenery and the actual cars, while on the 32X dithering is reserved purely for transparencies, with multiple shades and colours being used for polygon details.

In the screenshot above, you can see that on the 32X transparent objects such as shadows and selected smoke effects are dithered, whereas on the MD everything from the cars, the environment, and the effects use the technique. There are comparatively few areas of the stock VR game that don’t use dithering to balance out the lack of available colours for suitable 3D rendering. Unlike fully textured geometry, objects using flat shaded geometry require a greater number of colours to represent detailed imagery.

The downside to this, is that the heavily dithered image composition of the MD game leads to some noticeably fuzzy edges being present, along with making it more difficult to read the road up ahead – something which also isn’t helped by the game’s short draw distance.


RAW FB


Filtered FB

Dithering however, is largely only visible in unfiltered images. For example the above screenshots show, roughly, how the game would have looked via the MD’s – and indeed the 32X’s – video outputs using RGB SCART cables on a SD CRT. As you can see, dithering is greatly reduced due to the blending effect created by the filtered FB output, although some sharpness is lost as a result.


MD


32X

It’s fair to say then, that the Megadrive wasn’t set up with 3D rendering in mind. The system has no geometry processor, and features a CPU which is insufficient in rendering anything but the most primitive of polygonal shapes in small amounts. However, Virtua Racing manages to push around 6,500 polygons per-second via the use of Sega’s SVP chip – a DSP created by Samsung that handles all the geometry transform and rasterisation.

By contrast, the 32X has the benefit of featuring two Hitachi SH-2 CPU’s running at 23MHz in tandem, thus being able to churn out up to 50,000 polygons per-second in a best case scenario. How many PPS Virtua Racing Deluxe is pushing on screen we’re not exactly sure. However, it is definitely apparent that the number is significantly higher than what the MD using the SVP is doing.

On the other hand, the arcade version – powered by Sega’s Model 1 board – can deliver up to 180,000 flat-shaded PPS in-game, and does so with Virtua Racing at 30 frames per-second, so obviously it still has a sizable lead over both the MD and 32X games respectively.

In fact, the 32X game has much more in common overall with the MD version than with the coin-op. Although the cars themselves more accurately represent the arcade game in terms of raw detail, the trackside scenery, and the level of detail overall looks far more like an expansion of the modelling done on VR for the limited capabilities of the SVP chip powering the MD game. That said, the 32X version does a great job of representing the arcade on much weaker hardware.


MD


32X

The differences between each system’s hardware capabilities naturally have a great impact on just how well each version is replicated onscreen, with the added polygon pushing power of the 32X resulting in more detail cars and trackside scenery. Whereas the MD game just about resembles the coin-op, the 32X version on the other hand manages to replicate it a lot closer in certain areas.

The cars for example, are massively paired back on the MD. For comparison purposes we can only look at the stock formula 1 car, as the 32X game features the inclusion of two exclusive vehicles not in the arcade original or the MD game – the stock car, and prototype car. However, the formula 1 vehicle is bar far the most complex, featuring small interconnecting parts with more intricate geometric shapes making up its polygonal design.


MD


32X

Looking at the player’s car, we can see that its design on the MD is simply made up on more angular, square and rectangular-like shapes, with the wheels being directly attached to the side of the main body of the vehicle.

Around the front, and we can see examples of the curved design iconic to that of F1 and IndyCar vehicles, although decidedly blocky and very low poly. It can be quite hard to recognise the individual details which make up the various parts of the car in the rear, chase-cam view in comparison to both the 32X game and the coin-op.

The 32X version on the other hand, has a main vehicle that is not only more intricately detailed but also one that better represents the ones found in the arcade original as a whole. As you can see above, the wheels are now connected to the main body via individual rods, just like they would be on a real F1 car.

In addition, the front structure is more curved, and features an increased cone-like design, which better replicates the aerodynamic chassis required for high-speed racing. There is also better separation of the front, cockpit, and rear of the car, with the individual elements being more identifiable than on the MD version.

Despite the more detailed nature of the cars in general in the 32X game, there are some elements of the blocky MD vehicles that more closely represent the arcade version in some scenes.


MD


32X

In terms of the environment, both versions are at times reasonably close to each other, with the overall landscape holding similar shape and geometric composition despite the differences in polygons used throughout. The 32X version however, features bulked up parts of the environment using more geometry and a greater number of on-screen colours to smoothen off the rougher edges. Mountains in particular not only look larger on the 32X, but also feature much smoother transitions between gradients.

In other areas we can see more in the way of smaller environment details. In particular, the ferris wheel on the fairground is noticeably more complex in VRD compared to the MD game. While similar things can also be seen with the stands throughout the opening section of the Expert course, along with additional extras such as more in the way of metal railings and other trackside structures.


MD


32X

The pit crew look largerly identical, with only minor tweaks and featuring a different colour scheme. They appear to be constructed from various rectangular and square shaped boxes in combination with strips. Obviously, due to the poly starved nature of both the MD and the 32X, neither version showcases anything near approaching a human-like representation of people.


MD


32X

Strangely, there are areas in which the 32X game seems to feature less in the way of trackside detail than the MD one. In the above screenshots we can see what looks like a group of small white buildings upon the mountains in the MD version, while in the 32X version, although the mountains themselves appear fuller in terms of size and complexity, the buildings have been removed.

Across the whole game there are other such discrepancies between the two versions, in which some subtle details have been removed in the 32X version in order to accommodate the higher poly - and in itself more detailed - baseline scenery instead. On the plus size, the courses themselves are made up of larger objects which bring a far greater sense of scale to the proceedings compared to the standard VR on the MD.


MD


32X

Of course not all of the changes between VR and VR Deluxe are technical enhancements and compromises. A few differences appear to be purely cosmetic. Take for example, the sign pictured above from the Expert Course: on the MD it says “Sonic”, whereas the same one is displaying “32X” for Sega's upgraded Deluxe version.


MD


32X

The Course Select screen has also been updated in the 32X version from both the MD and the arcade. Each course has been given a rotating 3D model on the selection screen, along with the cars being given the same treatment on another menu. However, in the original arcade and MD games, the course select screen simply features a still 2D bitmap image instead.

The improvements don’t have a baring on the overall conversion quality of the two console conversions, although the spruced up presentation elements of the 32X game makes initial experience feel a little fresher and more in-keeping with the early 3D revolution that was taking place at the time.


MD


32X

Draw distance however, does greatly impact on the level of enjoyment you’re likely to get from each game, not least of all because the dithered nature of the MD version also further affects this, sometimes adversely – the fuzzier overall look makes seeing distance objects somewhat more difficult.

While both versions initially appear to have similar levels of polygon pop-up, there are instances where the 32X game suffers from closer on screen draw-in of certain objects, whilst the MD version features a more consistent level of draw-in on the whole. Smaller environmental details tend to pop-up later on the 32X, while the larger chunks of scenery usually appear at the same time, or slightly earlier than on the MD.

However, this peculiar observation seems to be track specific, with most of the offending examples happening on the beginner course. On most of the other tracks, pop-up seems to be near identical for both games; that is to say, while it can be rather intrusive at times, it is for the most part tolerable once you get used to it. Although, using the in-car view is pretty much useless, with the default, and higher viewpoints providing by far the best gameplay experience due to the closeness of the draw distance and overall image quality as a whole.


MD


32X

Moving on, and performance is rather interesting in Virtua Racing, not least of all because the game runs at such low framerates by modern standards, but because it still feels rather smooth on both formats despite this. Obviously, as already mentioned, the arcade game runs at a solid 30fps with full v-sync enabled - something that neither of the two home console conversions could manage without further heavy cuts in detail, and even then it would be virtually impossible on the MD using the current SVP chip implementation.

Instead, we see the framerate on the MD version halved in comparison to the coin-op. Virtua Racing runs at a solid 15fps on Sega’s 16bit platform, right in accordance with the SVP chip’s 6,500 polygons per-second at 15 frames per-second in-game limit. Even when spinning out of control, or crashing with other vehicles before flipping your car over in a similarly ridged fashion to that of the arcade game, VR never slows down.

By contrast, similar games from the time – like the Super NES’ Super FX powered Stunt Race FX – run at anything between 12-15fps depending on engine load and scene complexity, making Sega’s conversion to the MD all the more impressive. This feat is further enhanced when you consider that the game allows you to select all four views from the original arcade game – one of which sees you looking down on the race via an ‘eye in the sky’ type position, pushing engine load without faltering.

Interestingly, when playing this version of the game first, self-contained and away from other versions, the framerate feels pretty smooth despite being so low. It’s only when put up against Virtua Racing Deluxe does the lack of fluidity strongly manifest itself.

Jumping to VRD on the 32X, and the difference in smoothness is instantly noticeable. Like with VR on the MD, Deluxe is fully v-synced with no visible screen tearing occurring at any point. However, unlike the MD game, it comes even closer to matching the arcade game’s 30fps benchmark. Here, we see a solid 20fps update providing a clear extra level of fluidity above that of the MD version. Control not only feels smoother but also more responsive.

In any case, both home versions of the game pale in comparison to the coin-op, which not only boasts a much smoother framerate, but also vastly superior levels of detail. However, both the MD and 32X ports are incredibly accomplished, and for their time represent some of the very best in arcade to home experiences any console could offer.

Overall performance across both home versions is solid, free of any screen tearing, but most of all, smooth enough to allow for a fully playable experience, even if the MD game feels more than a little rough around the edges after sampling the 32X version.


MD


32X

What is surprising, is that Virtua Racing still holds up relatively well after all these years... on the 32X at least. Sure, the draw distance is a bitter reminder of the mixed travesty that was in some areas the Saturn conversion of Daytona USA - often impeding your ability in reading the road using the cockpit view - but the overall modelling of the environments, the look of the cars, and the crisp, responsive control, means that the game, to this day, is still very playable.

On the other hand, the MD version isn’t quite so lucky. The heavily dithered nature of the scenery, and the blocky, low poly enemy cars means that both sharp turns and other vehicles are sometimes very hard to spot before colliding straight into them. However, the game’s 15fps update still feels surprisingly smooth considering just how low it really is. Most of the problems don’t stem from the lack of overall fluidity, but from poor image quality and a large amount of polygon pop-up. Both of which do far more harm than good.

That said, getting Virtua Racing running on both of these consoles to a playable, even enjoyable, standard is somewhat remarkable. But whether this was the right thing to do, instead of focusing on the Saturn in the first place, is anyone’s guess. Either way, for most people Sega’s 16bit console and 32bit mushroom add-on was the only way to play Virtua Racing at home.

Of course, today that’s a moot point. Seeing as a definitive version of the game has been available for the last few years on the PS2 - its 60fps, and with the arcade game being near perfectly emulated in MAME, you could argue, is there really any reason to pick up such archaic conversions?

For anyone who likes to play games on proper hardware, free from the glitches and disconnecting feel sometimes offered up by emulation, then yes, I would certainly say so. In which case the 32X game is clearly the one to go for. Representing a fine balance between heavily cut down home console port and excellent arcade conversion, it manages to out perform the botched Saturn version in both graphics and gameplay overall, whilst still being a thoroughly faithful adaptation of Sega’s first 3D gaming sensation.

Tuesday, 28 December 2010

Tech Analysis: Mass Effect 2 Demo (PS3 vs 360)

This year we have already seen a tangible improvement in PS3 games that use the Unreal Engine 3, or even the UE in general. While titles such as Bioshock 2 added fire to the flames with low resolution alpha buffers and the inclusion of blur a filter of sorts, titles such as Ninja Theory’s Enslaved and the Activision published Singularity, showed that when optimised, PS3 versions of UE3 games could look and indeed run almost identically, with performance being the main separating factor.

The engine powering Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 is basically an updated, highly customised version of the UE3, an engine which is largely tailored to the Xbox 360 and its high levels of memory bandwidth delivering usually solid performance and plenty of full resolution visual effects. It's not uncommon then, to see the PS3 often struggling to cope with displaying the same level of visual fidelity given the engine’s use of high resolution alpha, and large instances of normal mapped transparencies.

However, as we’ve seen in two titles which use the engine this year, platform parity is indeed possible with some careful optimisations, and this is exactly what Bioware have done when approaching the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2. There are of course a few mandatory cutbacks, where the PS3’s reduced memory bandwidth automatically means a small hit in certain graphical effects and shaders, but there are also a few improvements too, not least of all more natural use of lighting and better overall performance.


360


PS3

Starting off with a look at the framebuffer, Mass Effect 2 renders in 720p (1280x720) on both platforms with what appears to be no anti-aliasing. However, as we’ve discussed before, the way the Unreal Engine 3 works means that standard MSAA solutions are often broken, with most edges simply getting zero AA at all. And this is exactly what we find here.

ME2 does in fact feature 2xMSAA on 360 in its core rendering make-up, although, due to the differed nature of how the UE engine operates in ME2 – rendering various parts of the framebuffer in different passes – the effect is basically borked to the extent of not being there at all. Once all elements have been added in rendering the final frame, we are left with a image devoid of any kind of noticeable edge smoothing. While on the other hand, the PS3 version seems to feature no AA at all.

Aliasing and shimmering then is often noticeable in high contrast areas, although overall IQ improves a little in dark scenes whereby distinct edges are less apparent. Both PS3 and 360 builds are basically identical in this regard.


360


PS3


360


PS3

Outside of the FB, Mass Effect 2 features both some obvious, and not so obvious upgrades and downgrades to the game engine on the PS3. As expected, allowances have had to be made for the console’s reduced memory bandwidth compared to the 360. As we’ve discussed many times before, with no EDRAM there is less bandwidth for normal mapping, textures, and shader effects, all of which have an impact on how the engine must be tailored to work around these limitations.

Here, we see that the PS3 version of the game features lower resolution/less detailed texturing on characters faces, along with paired back shader effects. Notice how subtle details, such as pores, fine lines etc, appear flatter and less pronounced on the PS3, and the skin in general having a slightly less detailed look to it. This tends to be more noticeable in some scenes than others, with lighting, shadowing, and camera distance all playing a part.


360


PS3

Another area in which the PS3 build sees similar changes in rendering quality, is with regards to normal mapping and specular highlighting. In addition to the paired back nature of texturing and shader effects on characters, we can see what looks like lower resolution normal mapping and downgraded specular on the characters.

In terms of specular, in some scenes use of the effect is simply rendered differently – apparent on character faces - but in a similar resolution to that of the 360 game, while in others the effect actually seems to be either completely absent or rendered in a lower res.


360


PS3


360


PS3

We can also see a reduction/lack of specular reflections in some parts of the environment itself, caused by the absence of any HDR-like bloom lighting on the PS3. The metal frame around the glass has what looks like both a specular and diffuse reflection map on the 360 game, whereas on the PS3 only what looks like the diffuse effect seems to be present.

Another example can be see in the second row of screenshots above, in a scene in which the difference is more apparent in the 360 game. The scene’s lighting composition makes the effect look a tad more intense, with shiny objects providing ample reflections. By contrast, on the PS3 the level of sheen and reflective properties has been paired back in comparison.


360


PS3

Interestingly, Bioware have for some elements of the game seemed to have upped the texture resolution of certain details on character clothing in direct compromise to removing the use of normal mapping. Above we can see that Miranda’s hexagonal suit uses a higher res texture map on the PS3, but at the same time isn’t normal mapped at all.

Arguably, the choice in using slightly higher resolution assets in it self would use up more memory than preserving it – which again isn’t an ideal solution when working on PS3. However, the cost of normal mapping in this case is indeed greater than that of a higher res texture, so by compromising in this way the developers still make the required savings in memory while also reducing the overall discrepancy between both builds.

In which case, Bioware has clearly made the right choice. The lack of normals doesn’t impact greatly on the scene in general, with lighting and shadowing still bringing depth to it. Occasionally, there are times whereby things do appear to look a little flatter as a result of this change, but nothing remotely impactfull. The characters still look great.


360


PS3

Moving on, and we can see that Bioware have made most of the downgrades on the characters themselves - with the exception of the removal of bloom and specular, the environments are largely left untouched looking exactly the same as found in the 360 version. From what I gather, it stands to reason that it was far easier for the team to make cuts on elements which are constantly present throughout the entire game – the characters - rather than having to shift through all the environment modelling downgrading parts from there.

However, beyond this there have also been a number of improvements to the engine powering Mass Effect 2 on the PS3. Being crafted from the newer, massively customised version of the UE3 – used in the upcoming ME3 - there have been a small range of upgrades and changes to both lighting and shadow composition along with performance compared to the 360 build of the game.


360


PS3

The first of these improvements on the PS3 version of the game comes with a differing approach to shadow filtering more suited to the Sony platform. On the 360, ME2 used jittered samples for filtering of its shadowmaps, thus leaving an unsightly dithered look to shadow edges. By contrast, on PS3 the developers have implemented the standard PCF shadowmap filtering that comes as standard – and with next to no cost –in order to improve shadow edges.

As a result we can see cleaner, sharper shadow edges on the PS3 build. The actual resolution of the shadowmaps themselves are still low resolution on both, it’s just the use of filtering that has changed. Obviously, the PCF method still results in some jittering shadows, like in Gran Turismo 5, which is unfortuniteky unavoidable, although preferable to the dithery shadows on the 360 game.


360


PS3


360


PS3

The second change is with regards to the overall lighting system implemented throughout the game. While the use of bloom has been removed from the PS3 engine code, the game features a more natural looking lighting system as a whole, with increased environmental and character shadow details, along with less harsh lighting from various specific lightsources.

Lighting appears to be more ambient in nature, and doesn’t suffer from intensely lighting up character faces like if they were to have a direct light source shining on them. Sometimes this makes it look like the characters aren’t being lit up by specific environment lights, though often it makes the scene look less contrasty and easier on the eyes.


360


PS3

Not all the changes in the lighting scheme work quite as well though, with various errors in lighting taking place – no doubt owing to the use of the ME3 lighting engine, and converting the ME2 lighting over to it for the PS3 build. Occasionally we see characters that aren’t lit and shaded as they as supposed to be, covered in darkness with ambient light barely having any impact.

Also, the use of self-shadowing in the PS3 build can also appear somewhat strong, sometimes looking a tad overdone in comparison to the implementation of the effect on the 360.

However, these oddities largely don’t take away anything from the modified lighting solution, with the lack of strong, often harsh source-dependant lights creating a slightly more balanced tone to things overall. Clearly, Bioware have had to make a compromise in fitting the lighting scheme from ME2 into something that would work in the new engine, and as a result some errors are inevitable, which is something that could only be sorted out with a complete re-write of the way lighting is handled as a whole in ME2. But given both time constraints and the impending release of ME3, that wasn’t at all feasible.


360


PS3

Lastly, in terms of performance we see that both versions have been optimised in different ways, with separate approaches to maintaining framerate and enabling v-sync. Now, while we can only compare the first part of the demo - the 360 one features a different second scenario - it is clear that performance is reasonably good on both platforms during gameplay, but on the whole seems to be better on the PS3 (both game play and cut-scenes), with less in the way of framerate drops at the expense of noticeable screen tearing.

Essentially, the 360 build is continuously v-synced, with screen tear only visible within the overscan area of the screen. As the load increases so the engine struggles to cope, and we see a drop in framerate down from the targeted 30fps down to something approaching the 20fps mark and then back up again. This is most noticeable during the cut-scenes, as during the opening gameplay section the framerate comes close to consitantly running at 30fps. Although, the framerate can drop down slightly more in some places on the PS3 compared to the 360, along with also spiking up beyond the 30fps mark.

By contrast, the PS3 build runs with an uncapped framerate and intermittent use of v-sync, whereby as the framerate begins to drop below the 30fps mark the engine ditches sync in order to keep a steady update throughout. The upside: is that we see a far more consistent 30fps update in the PS3 build overall, with framerates still dropping in heavier load scenarios. The downside: is that the game suffers from noticeable screen tearing.

So, the game’s cut-scenes run much smoother on the PS3, but drop frames noticeably on the 360. Tearing however, like during actual gameplay is visible as a result. In addition, the use of an uncapped framerate sometimes creates an uneven screen refresh experience during gameplay, whereby a constant upping and dropping of frames can create a few jerky moments in areas with little detail or that don’t greatly tax the engine.

But all in all, both versions seem to be well optimised for the platforms they are running on. All things considered, Bioware have differing priorities when attempting to deliver stable performance on each console, with the 360 game favouring a lower average framerate over tearing frames, and the PS3 build benefiting by running smoother, tearing frames when the engine isn’t ready to render the next one.


360


PS3

In conclusion, with Mass Effect 2 Bioware definitely looks to be on track in delivering a solid conversion of the game to the PS3, boasting some subtle and noticeable engine improvements, but with a few obviously inevitable downgrades. However, the cuts made in facial texture details, specular effects, and shaders barely impact on the overall experience as a whole. The PS3 version also benefits from having a more natural lighting scheme, which is easier on the eyes in scenes with high contrast lighting, and performance is for the most part - sans tearing - better than on 360.

Some rendering errors, like the odd instances of what looks like a failure to light characters in certain scenes properly, or the reduced levels of effects, due to PS3’s memory constraints, mean that neither version comes out on top – technically speaking, it can often feel like being tit for tat. But ultimately, both fare excellently in this regard anyway, featuring plenty of detail and a mostly balanced use of shadowing, which means that some of the choices will come down to which overall look you prefer than raw technical merit.

Obviously, the demo provides us with only a sample teaser of how both versions compare. But from both the opening segment and the second section exclusive to the PS3 demo, I’d be more than happy to go with the Sony version given the choice, especially as the final game will include all of the DLC and extra content of the 360 original. But either way on the very basis of the game itself, Mass Effect 2 should be well worth picking up whichever platform you happen to own.

Thanks go out to Mazinger Dude for the screens, and of course as ever to AlStrong for counting those pixels.