A few months ago we reported on how homebrew developers had created software that would allow Kinect to work on PC’s - in addition to unlocking the full 640x480 resolution depth buffer for increased accuracy, but now another ‘hacker’ going by the name of shantzg001 has come up with his own solution. But for Sony’s PlayStation 3.
In the above YouTube video ‘Shantzg001’ uses Microsoft’s Kinect in order to navigate the XMB menu screen using various hand gestures to do so, before finally booting up his copy of Killzone 3. It’s hardly impressive stuff, but more importantly, leads the way for others to expand on his work.
Then again, creating something awe-inspiring using the Kinect on the PS3 wasn’t the goal here at all. Instead, everything undertaken so far was simply done to show that it was possible to use the device on the console. As such, the hacker has posted the code used in the process on his website.
Rather than running homebrew code on the PS3, the hacker actually seems to be using some king of controller hub allowing you to connect a mouse and keyboard to the console in order for the Kinect to work. He then runs the device on his laptop, in which custom software remaps Kinect-based actions onto keyboard and mouse buttons, before finally being sent to his PS3. It's not a full blown hack whereby custom drivers are written specifically for the PS3. That would require a jailbroken console in order to do so.
As you might already be aware, Microsoft recently stated that their plan with Kinect was to eventually make the device open to both commercial and homebrew coders, and to that end, are releasing official PC SDK’s for the device for those purposes later this year.
The fact that Kinect can work on the PS3 makes things even more interesting, although, perhaps far less so if it does purely in the same capacity as button presses using a Dual Shock controller. And by all indications, that definitely seems to be the case here.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Friday, 18 March 2011
Tech Analysis: Mortal Kombat Demo (PS3)
In terms of whether or not this latest installment of Mortal Kombat succeeds, this mostly depends on how well the game resembles those classic first three entries in the series in terms of gameplay. And while its far too early to come to any conclusions from playing the demo, the early code does indeed show some promise. But it also falls short of the mark in certain areas. The hit detection for example, doesn't feel quite right.
Released last week exclusively to PlayStation Plus subscribers, NetherRealm Studios latest, the self-titled Mortal Kombat, is now available for everyone to download. The current demo is a Sony exclusive for now. So while multiplatform comparisons will have to come later, we can at least get a good look at how the PS3 version fares on its own merits - word is that the release of the Xbox 360 demo is still undecided at this point.
Like with MK vs DC Universe, 'Mortal Kombat' uses the Unreal Engine 3. But unlike most titles that utilise the tech, the game operates at sixty frames per-second, requiring some heavy customisation in order to get the game up and running within a 16ms per frame budget. To do this much of underlying rendering elements have been paired or cleverly streamlined in order to give the engine some leeway in meeting this target - MK vs DC had roughly 9ms per-frame, leaving a 7ms gap just in case rendering went over budget.
As a compromise, elements such as, self-shadowing have been disabled, the lighting system simplified (using a combination of per-pixel lit floors and per-vertex lit backgrounds, both static and dynamic), and various components of the game's code made to run asynchronously for maximum efficiency. In addition, the time spent sorting and rendering alpha-based objects has also been reduced.
However, this means that the UE3 can now support a stable 60fps update whilst still featuring a wide range of suitable visual effects. Characters and environments are reasonably detailed without looking spectacularly so, and the lighting - a mix of a few small dynamic lights, and a large degree of pre-baking - works within the context of NetherRealm's art design, without bringing in much depth to the action.
Seeing as the entire engine has been crafted around meeting that 16ms, 60fps target update, a starting look at performance is in order. Above we've put together a a short analysis vid showcasing some of our initial fights in the game's Ladder Mode (Arcade Mode basically).
The game hits its target 60fps refresh rate and never drops a single frame during regular play. V-sync is also permanently enabled, so that there is no screen tearing to be found whatsoever. The only time we see a drop in smoothness, is during execution of the characters X-Ray moves. However, this has no impact on controller response times as control is taken away from the player as soon as these are activated.
We also find that the game's use of slow motion in these sequences helps in making these drops go unnoticed.
The game's consistently smooth refresh is good news indeed. Although, in terms of its graphical make-up, first impressions are decidedly mixed. While the art design reasonably reflects a re-envisioning of the classic 2D MK games - brought up to date with an additionally 'edgy' styling - the game appears quite blurry, with edges looking soft and fuzzy. It's hard to belive that MK is presented in anything but sub-HD.
Well, as it turns out this isn't the case. Mortal Kombat is in actual fact rendering a full-fat, 720p framebuffer. The reason for the noticeably poor image quality comes down to the game's anti-aliasing solution - there simply isn't one. Instead, a cheap, 1x1 pixel blur has been employed, and that is the root cause of the upscaled look.
The blur deals with any potential 'jaggies' rather well - despite noticeably reducing overall IQ. And this further is enhanced by the way in which the human eye blends frames together during motion at 60fps.
We can also see that the game's alpha buffers are rendered out in half-resolution before being upscaled to match the native 720p framebuffer. The lack of filtering (not even a bilinear solution) also gives them a heavily pixelated look, with 2x2 pixel wide blocking artefacts being obviously visible in the screenshots above and during play when situated close to the TV screen.
Most PS3 titles, be that exclusives or third-party offerings usually use either lower res, or quater-res alpha buffers. Although, filtering is almost always extensively employed, making sure that effects feature a very smooth, blended appearance.
As this is the opposite in MK, we can only assume that either; it's early code and that the lack of filtering is simply a rendering issue that hasn't been corrected, or, that the bandwidth requirements of filtered alpha effects is simply too much for the UE3 to handle in a 60fps environment.
It will be interesting to see how both the Xbox 360 version, and the final retail PS3 game fares in this regard.
So far, Mortal Kombat hardly looks incredible. But it does look nice enough (bar the obvious edge blurring and low res effects), with the documented trade-offs in order to run in 60fps being worth it for the increased fluidity and smoother controller response. Although one can't quite feel that a custom, in-house designed engine, rather than a highly customised UE3, would have been more preferable.
On the other hand, the gameplay currently feels like an uneasy mix of both the old 2D installments and the newer, Soul Calibur-esque PS2 games. When compared up against Mortal Kombat 4 - the first of the series' 3D installments, but also an almost purely 2D game - it appears to be quite far away from delivering a suitably faithful representation of those first three, fondly remembered titles.
With just over a month to go, NetherRealm Studios still have some time left to polish up some of the visuals and make a few much-needed gameplay tweaks. The demo code, is according to the team around nine weeks old, with some people speculating that it could be even older. In which case, we shall see when the finished product hits.
Thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting and Richard Leadbetter for the use of Digital Foundry's analysis tools.
Released last week exclusively to PlayStation Plus subscribers, NetherRealm Studios latest, the self-titled Mortal Kombat, is now available for everyone to download. The current demo is a Sony exclusive for now. So while multiplatform comparisons will have to come later, we can at least get a good look at how the PS3 version fares on its own merits - word is that the release of the Xbox 360 demo is still undecided at this point.
Like with MK vs DC Universe, 'Mortal Kombat' uses the Unreal Engine 3. But unlike most titles that utilise the tech, the game operates at sixty frames per-second, requiring some heavy customisation in order to get the game up and running within a 16ms per frame budget. To do this much of underlying rendering elements have been paired or cleverly streamlined in order to give the engine some leeway in meeting this target - MK vs DC had roughly 9ms per-frame, leaving a 7ms gap just in case rendering went over budget.
As a compromise, elements such as, self-shadowing have been disabled, the lighting system simplified (using a combination of per-pixel lit floors and per-vertex lit backgrounds, both static and dynamic), and various components of the game's code made to run asynchronously for maximum efficiency. In addition, the time spent sorting and rendering alpha-based objects has also been reduced.
However, this means that the UE3 can now support a stable 60fps update whilst still featuring a wide range of suitable visual effects. Characters and environments are reasonably detailed without looking spectacularly so, and the lighting - a mix of a few small dynamic lights, and a large degree of pre-baking - works within the context of NetherRealm's art design, without bringing in much depth to the action.
Seeing as the entire engine has been crafted around meeting that 16ms, 60fps target update, a starting look at performance is in order. Above we've put together a a short analysis vid showcasing some of our initial fights in the game's Ladder Mode (Arcade Mode basically).
The game hits its target 60fps refresh rate and never drops a single frame during regular play. V-sync is also permanently enabled, so that there is no screen tearing to be found whatsoever. The only time we see a drop in smoothness, is during execution of the characters X-Ray moves. However, this has no impact on controller response times as control is taken away from the player as soon as these are activated.
We also find that the game's use of slow motion in these sequences helps in making these drops go unnoticed.
The game's consistently smooth refresh is good news indeed. Although, in terms of its graphical make-up, first impressions are decidedly mixed. While the art design reasonably reflects a re-envisioning of the classic 2D MK games - brought up to date with an additionally 'edgy' styling - the game appears quite blurry, with edges looking soft and fuzzy. It's hard to belive that MK is presented in anything but sub-HD.
Well, as it turns out this isn't the case. Mortal Kombat is in actual fact rendering a full-fat, 720p framebuffer. The reason for the noticeably poor image quality comes down to the game's anti-aliasing solution - there simply isn't one. Instead, a cheap, 1x1 pixel blur has been employed, and that is the root cause of the upscaled look.
The blur deals with any potential 'jaggies' rather well - despite noticeably reducing overall IQ. And this further is enhanced by the way in which the human eye blends frames together during motion at 60fps.
We can also see that the game's alpha buffers are rendered out in half-resolution before being upscaled to match the native 720p framebuffer. The lack of filtering (not even a bilinear solution) also gives them a heavily pixelated look, with 2x2 pixel wide blocking artefacts being obviously visible in the screenshots above and during play when situated close to the TV screen.
Most PS3 titles, be that exclusives or third-party offerings usually use either lower res, or quater-res alpha buffers. Although, filtering is almost always extensively employed, making sure that effects feature a very smooth, blended appearance.
As this is the opposite in MK, we can only assume that either; it's early code and that the lack of filtering is simply a rendering issue that hasn't been corrected, or, that the bandwidth requirements of filtered alpha effects is simply too much for the UE3 to handle in a 60fps environment.
It will be interesting to see how both the Xbox 360 version, and the final retail PS3 game fares in this regard.
So far, Mortal Kombat hardly looks incredible. But it does look nice enough (bar the obvious edge blurring and low res effects), with the documented trade-offs in order to run in 60fps being worth it for the increased fluidity and smoother controller response. Although one can't quite feel that a custom, in-house designed engine, rather than a highly customised UE3, would have been more preferable.
On the other hand, the gameplay currently feels like an uneasy mix of both the old 2D installments and the newer, Soul Calibur-esque PS2 games. When compared up against Mortal Kombat 4 - the first of the series' 3D installments, but also an almost purely 2D game - it appears to be quite far away from delivering a suitably faithful representation of those first three, fondly remembered titles.
With just over a month to go, NetherRealm Studios still have some time left to polish up some of the visuals and make a few much-needed gameplay tweaks. The demo code, is according to the team around nine weeks old, with some people speculating that it could be even older. In which case, we shall see when the finished product hits.
Thanks go out to AlStrong for the pixel counting and Richard Leadbetter for the use of Digital Foundry's analysis tools.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Tech Analysis: Motorstorm: Apocalypse Demo
The Motorstorm series has been there since the inception of Sony's PlayStation 3, and should no doubt be there right at the very end of its life cycle. With each successive installment the game design has constantly evolved, the sense of scale upped, and the level of intensity taken beyond that of a traditional off-road racer. Motorstorm: Apocalypse doesn't buck this trend, instead pushing things further into the realm of fantasy.
The sedate desert canyons of the original Motorstorm, and the sprawling volcanic island of the second game have both been replaced with a cityscape in the midst's of chaos being caused by a raging natural disaster. While on the other hand, the gameplay has seen some subtle but wholly beneficial tweaks.
This change brings about a serious refinement in tech, with the game boasting larger, more destructible environments, reworked particle and physics effects, and additionally, both 3D and 1080p support.
There's no doubt that Evolution Studios have pushed the boundaries of what is possible on the PS3 even further in the context of a driving game. And although the demo is rather conservative compared to what we've seen of the finished product, it gives us an initially positive look at just what has changed.
As always a look at the framebuffer reveals that the game is rendering in 720p and uses an implementation of Sony's morphological anti-aliasing (MLAA) solution instead of the 2x multi-sampling (MSAA) technique found in past titles.
As we are finding out evermore frequently, MLAA is vast becoming a magic bullet of sorts with regards to getting a cheap, but effective way of suppressing jagged edges on most PS3 titles. According to Little Big Planet developer, Media Molecule, it can be dropped into a game engine with just a day's worth of coding.
The MLAA implementation in MS: Apocalypse looks to do a great job too. It appears to be very similar to the one used in Killzone 3 - perhaps another custom variant of it - and deals with regular aliasing artefacts extremely well. High contrast edges are handled with ease, with only some sub-pixel issues and mild instances of shader-based aliasing that go unresolved - neither of which can be dealt with by using this current implementations alone.
But on the whole its hard to believe that a regular MSAA solution under the 4x mark would fair any better.
Moving on, and Evolution Studios has dramatically upgraded the game as a whole. Lighting stands out for being high-contrasty and exaggerated as a whole, bringing depth to the scene, while the level of environmental destruction has been raised considerably, with collapsing buildings, explosions, fire, smoke and particle effects constantly bombarding the track in one way or another as you race.
The dust and dirt trails that emanate from vehicles, along with smoke effects especially, have been given a noticeable boost in particular. Some of these effects now cast shadows on the ground in certain circumstances and have a lot more depth - they look like they have more 'volume' but without actually being volumetric.
In order to achieve this, all alpha buffers are rendering in quarter resolution - like in Killzone 3 - as to prevent reaching the system's peak bandwidth limit too early on. As a result, we can see that water and fire effects look particularly soft up close, as does smoke in some situations.
Shadows too, also see some compromises for the same reasons. Dithering artefacts are noticeably present on edges, additionally affecting some parts of the environment blanketed in shade. It's likely that the use of both low quality filtering, and perhaps blending techniques, is what's causing this.
But ultimately, when concentrating on racing non of this really has any impact on the game at all. If anything, without the increased use of alpha effects, some of the immersion would have been lost. Keeping the screen busy, filled with distractions is part of what makes this series stand out from competing titles.
Seeing as the demo features so much going at various points, and that the use of alpha plays a significant part in crafting the overall experience - the feeling of immersion, you'd be forgiven from expecting the engine to have trouble with maintaining its targeted 30fps update.
But this isn't so. And as our analysis video above points out, the developers at Evolution have successfully achieved this near solidly, with only a few scant dips to be found throughout; non of which impact on the gameplay in any way.
Some screen tearing is also apparent, as true v-sync hasn't been employed. Instead, we see that soft v-sync has been used, whereby tearing is allowed to occur at the very top of the screen (in the overscan area normally cut off on most HDTVs). Looking at this area in our video reveals that the game is constantly tearing - a result of the engine attempting to deliver frames for display as quickly as possible.
With this in mind we've clipped the top fifteen lines from analysis in order to give you an idea on how often the game actually produces torn frames that you can see. And as we expected, most of the visible tearing goes largely unnoticed, bar from the odd occasion where the engine struggles to render out a near complete frame in time for the next screen refresh.
Seeing as the GPU isn't stalling when trying to keep up with the next screen refresh, the framerate is effectively smooth throughout, meaning that MS: Apocalypse has nothing in the way of impacting controller latency issues. While aside from some minor tearing, image fidelity is also preserved. And this is further backed up with a tweaked, more responsive handling mechanic.
Cars still have that 'loose' feeling that encompasses the series trademark style, although turning feels sharper and the sluggishness seems to have been toned down a notch. Personally, I think the mechanics do feel a little bit too loose on the whole. But this is a stylistically engineered choice. So in that respect, it's business as usual.
Overall, our time with the demo barely represents what the full game has in store for us. It's pretty clear that this short taster is just a very small, and pretty pedestrian sample of what is yet to come. Either way, the same technical show-points are there (just not in as greater numbers) and the improvement over and above the first two games is obviously apparent.
The sedate desert canyons of the original Motorstorm, and the sprawling volcanic island of the second game have both been replaced with a cityscape in the midst's of chaos being caused by a raging natural disaster. While on the other hand, the gameplay has seen some subtle but wholly beneficial tweaks.
This change brings about a serious refinement in tech, with the game boasting larger, more destructible environments, reworked particle and physics effects, and additionally, both 3D and 1080p support.
There's no doubt that Evolution Studios have pushed the boundaries of what is possible on the PS3 even further in the context of a driving game. And although the demo is rather conservative compared to what we've seen of the finished product, it gives us an initially positive look at just what has changed.
As always a look at the framebuffer reveals that the game is rendering in 720p and uses an implementation of Sony's morphological anti-aliasing (MLAA) solution instead of the 2x multi-sampling (MSAA) technique found in past titles.
As we are finding out evermore frequently, MLAA is vast becoming a magic bullet of sorts with regards to getting a cheap, but effective way of suppressing jagged edges on most PS3 titles. According to Little Big Planet developer, Media Molecule, it can be dropped into a game engine with just a day's worth of coding.
The MLAA implementation in MS: Apocalypse looks to do a great job too. It appears to be very similar to the one used in Killzone 3 - perhaps another custom variant of it - and deals with regular aliasing artefacts extremely well. High contrast edges are handled with ease, with only some sub-pixel issues and mild instances of shader-based aliasing that go unresolved - neither of which can be dealt with by using this current implementations alone.
But on the whole its hard to believe that a regular MSAA solution under the 4x mark would fair any better.
Moving on, and Evolution Studios has dramatically upgraded the game as a whole. Lighting stands out for being high-contrasty and exaggerated as a whole, bringing depth to the scene, while the level of environmental destruction has been raised considerably, with collapsing buildings, explosions, fire, smoke and particle effects constantly bombarding the track in one way or another as you race.
The dust and dirt trails that emanate from vehicles, along with smoke effects especially, have been given a noticeable boost in particular. Some of these effects now cast shadows on the ground in certain circumstances and have a lot more depth - they look like they have more 'volume' but without actually being volumetric.
In order to achieve this, all alpha buffers are rendering in quarter resolution - like in Killzone 3 - as to prevent reaching the system's peak bandwidth limit too early on. As a result, we can see that water and fire effects look particularly soft up close, as does smoke in some situations.
Shadows too, also see some compromises for the same reasons. Dithering artefacts are noticeably present on edges, additionally affecting some parts of the environment blanketed in shade. It's likely that the use of both low quality filtering, and perhaps blending techniques, is what's causing this.
But ultimately, when concentrating on racing non of this really has any impact on the game at all. If anything, without the increased use of alpha effects, some of the immersion would have been lost. Keeping the screen busy, filled with distractions is part of what makes this series stand out from competing titles.
Seeing as the demo features so much going at various points, and that the use of alpha plays a significant part in crafting the overall experience - the feeling of immersion, you'd be forgiven from expecting the engine to have trouble with maintaining its targeted 30fps update.
But this isn't so. And as our analysis video above points out, the developers at Evolution have successfully achieved this near solidly, with only a few scant dips to be found throughout; non of which impact on the gameplay in any way.
Some screen tearing is also apparent, as true v-sync hasn't been employed. Instead, we see that soft v-sync has been used, whereby tearing is allowed to occur at the very top of the screen (in the overscan area normally cut off on most HDTVs). Looking at this area in our video reveals that the game is constantly tearing - a result of the engine attempting to deliver frames for display as quickly as possible.
With this in mind we've clipped the top fifteen lines from analysis in order to give you an idea on how often the game actually produces torn frames that you can see. And as we expected, most of the visible tearing goes largely unnoticed, bar from the odd occasion where the engine struggles to render out a near complete frame in time for the next screen refresh.
Seeing as the GPU isn't stalling when trying to keep up with the next screen refresh, the framerate is effectively smooth throughout, meaning that MS: Apocalypse has nothing in the way of impacting controller latency issues. While aside from some minor tearing, image fidelity is also preserved. And this is further backed up with a tweaked, more responsive handling mechanic.
Cars still have that 'loose' feeling that encompasses the series trademark style, although turning feels sharper and the sluggishness seems to have been toned down a notch. Personally, I think the mechanics do feel a little bit too loose on the whole. But this is a stylistically engineered choice. So in that respect, it's business as usual.
Overall, our time with the demo barely represents what the full game has in store for us. It's pretty clear that this short taster is just a very small, and pretty pedestrian sample of what is yet to come. Either way, the same technical show-points are there (just not in as greater numbers) and the improvement over and above the first two games is obviously apparent.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Tech Analysis: Fight Night Champion (360 vs PS3)
We first looked at Fight Night Champion in our back to 30fps feature, discussing the actual benefits that the use of a lower frame-rate had on the overall experience. Both the look and feel of the game was transformed, with a style that made pulling punches and their impacts feel more intense. The action felt faster and more furious than before.
Since then it has come to light that some of the additional upgrades with regards to FN Champion's graphical look are completely separate from the decision to target a 30fps refresh rate. The lighting for example has been built around working in both 30fps and 60fps environments, whilst the controls (according to the developer) still operate at the higher frame-rate independently of rendering update.
At the same time, it's also hard to believe that there hasn't been some tangible benefits with regards to the additional increase in rendering time per-frame in other areas. But either way EA's latest looks far more spectacular than their last boxing release, and the final game continues to show what we found out during our time with the demo - that 60fps isn't the be all and end all when it comes to graphics.
But what about the PS3 and 360 releases. How do they match up? Well, the good news is that they are basically on a par with each other. In this respect the outcome is exactly like that of Fight Night Round 4.
Fight Night Champion renders in 720p on both platforms with the Xbox 360 game featuring use of 4xMSAA, while on PS3 the alternative quincunx solution (QAA) is used instead. As we've seen many times before, the use of QAA provides a similar amount of edge-smoothing compared to the more traditional MSAA, but this comes at the cost of blurring texture details as well as edges.
However, like in past Fight Night titles this overall effect does little to spoil the final image. The game looks clean and smooth on both formats with the blur only really standing out when flicking between the two on the HDTV, or in still screenshots. There's still plenty of intricate detailing visible, but not quite as much at certain points.
A difference in gamma curve can also be seen when putting the two games up against each other. As per usual we see that the 360 version is a little darker than the PS3 one, with subtle shadow details standing out more as a result of this, but without crushing black levels. However, this can easily be adjusted so that both games look identical without anything other than the very minimal of fuss.
In addition there is a variance in how each version renders the scenery outside of the ring in pre-fight introductions from a distance - different LOD parameters for both. The 360 game features spectators which are constructed of less geometry than their PS3 counterparts but at the expense of having more detailed textures. This only appears to be when the scene is viewed from afar. Move in closer and the two are brought back up to a similar standard. You can see this in the shots below.
But outside of this the game looks basically the same across both platforms. Art assets are identical, and the variances in lighting that can sometimes be seen is simply down to the lightsources being in different places at slightly different times. Albeit, ever so slightly.
In motion, these graphical subtleties are barely noticeable unless you've played both versions back to back, and considering that this is something you'd never do in regular play it's safe to say that nothing is lost as a result.
So far, EA's latest boxing smash is following in the footsteps of its predecessor extremely closely. But perhaps the main talking point, and indeed the most substantial difference between the two games is with regards to the frame-rate. While FN RD4 saw the game being upgraded to take advantage of all the benefits provided by the jump to a 60fps refresh (more responsive controls, smoother visual update etc), FN Champion on the other hand favours the drop back down to 30fps, instead choosing to back this up with a highly advanced and very convincing motion blur effect.
The combination of a 30fps update and motion blur has the effect on not only making the action look smoother than the normal 30fps game, but also far more brutal. FN Champion looks like a moody Hollywood blockbuster, whereby the impact of each blow carries a greater weight and appearance than before. By comparison, in FN RD4 the presentation alluded to that of a televised presentation.
But what does this change mean in terms of how the game plays?
To put it mildly, not as much as you might think. Past Fight Night titles always has a delayed feel with regards to controller response times (less so with RD4) compared to the likes of Tekken or Street Fighter, and FN Champion is no different. There is a slight, but noticeable all the same, increase in latency overall compared to FN RD 4, but control feels good on the whole. Moves can still be performed quickly and accurately, for example.
It also has to be said that the weighty feel of past games - designed to deliver the sensation of actually pulling punches - still comes across very well considering you no longer have to pull off various motions using the right analogue stick anymore. The additional delay I suspect, similar to how this is used to add weight to weapon aiming in Killzone 2, is the perhaps the main reason for this.
A look at performance then, and FN Champion is solid on both formats with very little in the way to separate them. While I thought that I experienced a few more frame-rate drops during play than what is registered in our video, it looks like the output on my Intensity Pro capture card (second output to HDTV) was affecting this. When playing both back just connected to my HDTV alone, they are exactly like-for-like in this regard.
As you can see in our performance vid, the game both targets and almost fully sustains a constant 30fps update. Outside of a few small instances (and one or two detection errors - 12.0fps and such like), it never drops from that point. That said, we do see a few scenes whereby the game is slightly smoother on the 360. The game drops slightly more frames during the cut-scenes on the PS3, although both games feature dips at roughly the same points and at similar levels.
Beyond this FN Champion strongly sticks to its 30fps baseline update, and it never deviates from it during actual gameplay. In addition, v-sync is employed on both platforms which means that there are never any torn frames throughout the whole experience. The entire presentation is both clean and smooth on both formats.
You can also see clearly the impact the use of motion blur has on the visuals, and how it augments the very look the developers were trying to recreate.
Moving on and there's very little left to discuss. The game's use of per-object motion blur is by far the most advanced implementation we've seen so far. It appears very natural when things are in motion, and the varying degrees of distortion it occupies at different points ensure that the results are subtle and noticeable at the same time, adding to the immersion.
Also, as we've talked about before, the lighting and shading on both the characters and the environments have also been improved over the last game. Better use of multiple dynamic lightsources in combination with more intricate shading means that there's plenty of depth on offer, and this is further expanded upon with the return of SSAO.
There have also been other improvements too, which you can see below. The body deformation system looks even more complex this time around. Here we see some really nice blending of normal maps in combination with what looks like some kind of simulation, maybe using real-time dynamics based on the bone structure to simulate skin and muscle movement.
Perhaps the only thing to add, is that all these upgrades are represented equally on both Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.
Elsewhere, and away from graphical prowess, we found that loading times are also slightly longer on the PS3. Although, thanfully this is circumvented by a complete lack of the usual 'mandatory install' we sometimes have to deal with on the platform. In any case it isn't something worth complaining about.
So, the conclusion then. Like with Fight Night Round 4, FN Champion comes equally recommended on both platforms with the slightly blurrier look of the PS3 game really doing nothing to take away from the graphical splendor that EA have achieved. The game looks stunning, with realistic body movement and deformation, accomplished lighting and shading, plus use of motion blur, and all at a flawless thirty frames per-second.
For owners of both formats, and for the people who want the very best image quality available, then the 360 version is the best bet - just about, by the very tiniest of margins. But if all your mates are playing it online via the PS3, then I'd have no qualms about recommending it on that format instead. Both are visually spectacular regardless.
As for the game itself, it's fair to say that FN Champion still delivers a cracking round of the sport for anyone wanting to go in fists first. 'Legacy Mode' and its frustrating mini-games is a continued annoyance, but the new - albeit short - 'Champion Mode' definitely presents us with an interesting take on things. It gives you another reason to play outside of simply taking your chosen fighter to the top, with every Hollywood cliche you care to mention in tow.
Special thanks go out to Richard Leadbetter this time around, for all his help and support, plus allowing me to contribute on the latest Digital Foundry Article.
Since then it has come to light that some of the additional upgrades with regards to FN Champion's graphical look are completely separate from the decision to target a 30fps refresh rate. The lighting for example has been built around working in both 30fps and 60fps environments, whilst the controls (according to the developer) still operate at the higher frame-rate independently of rendering update.
At the same time, it's also hard to believe that there hasn't been some tangible benefits with regards to the additional increase in rendering time per-frame in other areas. But either way EA's latest looks far more spectacular than their last boxing release, and the final game continues to show what we found out during our time with the demo - that 60fps isn't the be all and end all when it comes to graphics.
But what about the PS3 and 360 releases. How do they match up? Well, the good news is that they are basically on a par with each other. In this respect the outcome is exactly like that of Fight Night Round 4.
Fight Night Champion renders in 720p on both platforms with the Xbox 360 game featuring use of 4xMSAA, while on PS3 the alternative quincunx solution (QAA) is used instead. As we've seen many times before, the use of QAA provides a similar amount of edge-smoothing compared to the more traditional MSAA, but this comes at the cost of blurring texture details as well as edges.
However, like in past Fight Night titles this overall effect does little to spoil the final image. The game looks clean and smooth on both formats with the blur only really standing out when flicking between the two on the HDTV, or in still screenshots. There's still plenty of intricate detailing visible, but not quite as much at certain points.
A difference in gamma curve can also be seen when putting the two games up against each other. As per usual we see that the 360 version is a little darker than the PS3 one, with subtle shadow details standing out more as a result of this, but without crushing black levels. However, this can easily be adjusted so that both games look identical without anything other than the very minimal of fuss.
In addition there is a variance in how each version renders the scenery outside of the ring in pre-fight introductions from a distance - different LOD parameters for both. The 360 game features spectators which are constructed of less geometry than their PS3 counterparts but at the expense of having more detailed textures. This only appears to be when the scene is viewed from afar. Move in closer and the two are brought back up to a similar standard. You can see this in the shots below.
But outside of this the game looks basically the same across both platforms. Art assets are identical, and the variances in lighting that can sometimes be seen is simply down to the lightsources being in different places at slightly different times. Albeit, ever so slightly.
In motion, these graphical subtleties are barely noticeable unless you've played both versions back to back, and considering that this is something you'd never do in regular play it's safe to say that nothing is lost as a result.
So far, EA's latest boxing smash is following in the footsteps of its predecessor extremely closely. But perhaps the main talking point, and indeed the most substantial difference between the two games is with regards to the frame-rate. While FN RD4 saw the game being upgraded to take advantage of all the benefits provided by the jump to a 60fps refresh (more responsive controls, smoother visual update etc), FN Champion on the other hand favours the drop back down to 30fps, instead choosing to back this up with a highly advanced and very convincing motion blur effect.
The combination of a 30fps update and motion blur has the effect on not only making the action look smoother than the normal 30fps game, but also far more brutal. FN Champion looks like a moody Hollywood blockbuster, whereby the impact of each blow carries a greater weight and appearance than before. By comparison, in FN RD4 the presentation alluded to that of a televised presentation.
But what does this change mean in terms of how the game plays?
To put it mildly, not as much as you might think. Past Fight Night titles always has a delayed feel with regards to controller response times (less so with RD4) compared to the likes of Tekken or Street Fighter, and FN Champion is no different. There is a slight, but noticeable all the same, increase in latency overall compared to FN RD 4, but control feels good on the whole. Moves can still be performed quickly and accurately, for example.
It also has to be said that the weighty feel of past games - designed to deliver the sensation of actually pulling punches - still comes across very well considering you no longer have to pull off various motions using the right analogue stick anymore. The additional delay I suspect, similar to how this is used to add weight to weapon aiming in Killzone 2, is the perhaps the main reason for this.
A look at performance then, and FN Champion is solid on both formats with very little in the way to separate them. While I thought that I experienced a few more frame-rate drops during play than what is registered in our video, it looks like the output on my Intensity Pro capture card (second output to HDTV) was affecting this. When playing both back just connected to my HDTV alone, they are exactly like-for-like in this regard.
As you can see in our performance vid, the game both targets and almost fully sustains a constant 30fps update. Outside of a few small instances (and one or two detection errors - 12.0fps and such like), it never drops from that point. That said, we do see a few scenes whereby the game is slightly smoother on the 360. The game drops slightly more frames during the cut-scenes on the PS3, although both games feature dips at roughly the same points and at similar levels.
Beyond this FN Champion strongly sticks to its 30fps baseline update, and it never deviates from it during actual gameplay. In addition, v-sync is employed on both platforms which means that there are never any torn frames throughout the whole experience. The entire presentation is both clean and smooth on both formats.
You can also see clearly the impact the use of motion blur has on the visuals, and how it augments the very look the developers were trying to recreate.
Moving on and there's very little left to discuss. The game's use of per-object motion blur is by far the most advanced implementation we've seen so far. It appears very natural when things are in motion, and the varying degrees of distortion it occupies at different points ensure that the results are subtle and noticeable at the same time, adding to the immersion.
Also, as we've talked about before, the lighting and shading on both the characters and the environments have also been improved over the last game. Better use of multiple dynamic lightsources in combination with more intricate shading means that there's plenty of depth on offer, and this is further expanded upon with the return of SSAO.
There have also been other improvements too, which you can see below. The body deformation system looks even more complex this time around. Here we see some really nice blending of normal maps in combination with what looks like some kind of simulation, maybe using real-time dynamics based on the bone structure to simulate skin and muscle movement.
Perhaps the only thing to add, is that all these upgrades are represented equally on both Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.
Elsewhere, and away from graphical prowess, we found that loading times are also slightly longer on the PS3. Although, thanfully this is circumvented by a complete lack of the usual 'mandatory install' we sometimes have to deal with on the platform. In any case it isn't something worth complaining about.
So, the conclusion then. Like with Fight Night Round 4, FN Champion comes equally recommended on both platforms with the slightly blurrier look of the PS3 game really doing nothing to take away from the graphical splendor that EA have achieved. The game looks stunning, with realistic body movement and deformation, accomplished lighting and shading, plus use of motion blur, and all at a flawless thirty frames per-second.
For owners of both formats, and for the people who want the very best image quality available, then the 360 version is the best bet - just about, by the very tiniest of margins. But if all your mates are playing it online via the PS3, then I'd have no qualms about recommending it on that format instead. Both are visually spectacular regardless.
As for the game itself, it's fair to say that FN Champion still delivers a cracking round of the sport for anyone wanting to go in fists first. 'Legacy Mode' and its frustrating mini-games is a continued annoyance, but the new - albeit short - 'Champion Mode' definitely presents us with an interesting take on things. It gives you another reason to play outside of simply taking your chosen fighter to the top, with every Hollywood cliche you care to mention in tow.
Special thanks go out to Richard Leadbetter this time around, for all his help and support, plus allowing me to contribute on the latest Digital Foundry Article.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Tech Analysis: Dragon Age 2 Demo (360 vs PS3)
It's very late and has been sitting on the table for a few days now while I finish up something else I've been working on. Not really had the time to be fair. But here's our demo analysis of Dragon Age 2.
The PS3 usually gets the short end of the stick when it comes to multiplatform conversions. Just look at the likes of Red Dead Redemption or Bioshock, with their sub-HD rendering resolutions and use of screen blurring anti-alising techniques. Or, in the case of the latter; no AA with a simple blurring of the image instead. Of course, on the other side of the coin you have titles such as Vanquish, which commanded a tiny lead of its 360 counterpasrt with slightly better overall performance. And Mass Effect 2, with improved shadowing and athestically more pleasing lighting.
The original Dragon Age Origins almost found itself in the latter catagory; a game in which PS3 owners gained additional graphical upgrades in the form of increased texture filtering and better depth of field. While neither version looked particularly great - a fault of the game rather than the consoles inhability to run it - it was Sony's black box of tricks that, at first glance, came out on top. Except for in terms of performance: it was pretty dire in this regard.
Given the mediocre graphical look of the last game, the team at Bioware have stated on various occasions that they planned to improve on the visual make-up and engine powering the series for Dragon Age 2. And in the recent XBL and PSN demo, we can clearly see a few key changes. But most of all a tangible improvement all round, with the 360 build more than matching up to - and exceeding in certain areas - the PS3 code.
360
PS3
The most obvious of these upgrades on both formats, is that the characters and environments in the game feature better use of normal mapping. There are a range of surfaces that appear curved and have a noticeable depth to them. By comparison, in the original Dragon Age many parts of the game featured fairly low resolution, flat textured areas of the environment, with characters that lacked some of the additional effects present in this sequel.
Of course, some of the low resolution elements remain. But here we also see an abundance of mixed hi and low resolution textures, and some key, higher quality elements interwined.
The armour on some of the characters for example, features low resolution textures, whilst some of the surrounding clothing uses higher quality ones. It's quite a visual discrepancy to say the least, with some very obviously poor texturework shoehorned into more detailed areas. On PC this varience is further enlarged. But, thankfully, on consoles appears much less of an issue.
360
PS3
In terms of the framebuffer, we see both versions rendering in 720p. The main difference here, comes in the form of anti-aliasing used in each version's graphical make-up. On 360, we get the standard issue 2xMSAA solution, while PS3 owners are granted a custom take on another MLAA implementation.
While we all know how MSAA works, MLAA is a somewhat lesser known beast. Despite being given a specific title, MLAA can feature a wide variety of implementations, each dealing with the scene a little differently. Universally though, they all have one thing in common: they only work on the finished rendered scene - basically as a post process on the framebuffer before it gets displayed on screen.
The choice of opting for MLAA makes sense when dealing with both consoles impacting memory contrasints compared to the PC, and especially on the PS3, whereby the additional processing power of the CELL allows you to free up more GPU cyclers for other tasks. And in Dragon Age 2, this seems to be the key reason for its uptake on Sony's platform: Better edge smoothing with less impact on memory and processsing requirements compared to MSAA.
360
PS3
As you can see above, this is definitely true. Pixel edges are smoothed over incredibly well, matching MSAA sampling well over the 4x limit a select few 360 titles employ. Naturally, you don't get any sub-pixel coverage or accuracy when dealing with MLAA. Although this seems to be far less of an issue in Dragon Age 2. On the PS3, the game looks even cleaner compared to its 360 counterpart. The AA is superb, and not just for a console title.
That said, there is another small niggle that comes with Bioware's custom form of MLAA. And that is the unwanted side-effect of blurring texture details. Essentially, all MLAA-based solution work around a purely edge-detect method of sampling: you find the pixels which look like an edge, and then apply the smoothing algorithm. However, with no geometry information to extract additional data from, you are left at the mercy of how effective your algorithm is at deciphering a legitimate edge, and faux-edges of sorts found in contrasting parts of a texrture map.
It's evident from the screens that in Bioware's case, the end result has very little impact on the image overall. Yes, there is some blur, but it is nothing overtly noticeably, nor does it really impact in any meaningful way. It is largely incosequencial.
So, in that respect, the PS3 versions gains the upper hand with regards to overall IQ, with better edge-sampling coverage, and with little in the way of annoying sub-pixel issues. Then again, DA2 looks clean and sharp on both platfroms. But it is definitely cleaner on the PS3.
360
PS3
360
PS3
Outside of the framebuffer make-up there is very little to seperate the two versions at all with regards to their graphical look. Lighting, like with Mass Effect 2 appears to be handled a little differently across both versions, although this has little imapct with no one version appearing better than the other.
You can see the key indicator in the screenshots above. Notice how the specular reflections are in different places in both versions in the second shot, whilst the actual frame captures are the same. Colour tone also appears to be different too, seen clearly in the first batch of screens. Compared to the huge variance in Mass Effect 2, the lighting between versions is significantly closer.
360
PS3
Also, the use of alpha-based effects, such as the flame effects in the cut-scenes see some small changes when comparing both games. They seem to be represented a tad differently on both platforms.
360
PS3
Dragon Age 2 also features the use of self-shadowing across all platforms (PC, PS3 and 360). However, the effect looks to have been given a weaker implementation on the PS3. You can see in the shots above. The PS3 game appears to feature much lighter self-shadows, but also missing them on certain parts of the characters. The the impact from the beads around the character's neck, for example, barely cast a complete shadow in the above screens by comparison.
Outside of this, bar the way certain effects are handled, both versions are actually visually very close. There are a few passing oddities, but nothing remotely enough for either version to command a solid lead in this respect. The use of MLAA is by far the most impacting factor in the PS3 code.
360
PS3
One area of the original Dragon Age that left a lot to be desired on the PS3, was its performance. It's safe to say that BioWare's first outing suffered at the hand of numerous framerate drops causing heavy slowdown. By comparason, the 360 game, although slowing down, maintained its baseline 30fps for longer stetches than on the PS3.
Here in the demo code, we find similar traits manifesting them selves during gameplay. Although it is also apparent that progress has definitely been made in this regard. Seeing as the demo is rather short, and that I've only been able to access the first part of it, its far to early to draw any solid conclusions. However, the fact remains that performance still the biggest factor seperating the two versions.
Dragon Age 2 opts to target a 30fps update, and runs with v-sync solidly enabled. As a result, we find that the game never tears but instead drops frames as it struggles to keep up with the renderer. Rather than the 360 leading on all fronts, here we see a difference in performance in both gameplay and in cut-scenes.
Gameplay-wise, both builds start out at 30fps. And both maintain this very well in the absence of any load. Simply running into a group of enemies, hacking and slashing away rarely leads to much, if any slowdown. Throw in a large foe into the works surrounded with five or six smaller adversaries, whilst strafing around and spining the camera, and we find that both versions will slow down to around the 20fps mark or so. But the defining element appears to be alpha-based. Effects like smoke and fire cause the PS3 game to drop frames more often, and lower down than its 360 counterpart.
Cut-scenes operate a little differently. Here we see heavy drops below both the 30fps and 20fps mark. However, it also appears that these drops are slightly less severe on the PS3. Even though at times, both slow down in equal measure. Just like during gameplay, large creatures and specific effects are the root cause - when there's little going on to stress the engine, both run smoothly at 30fps.
360
PS3
From what we've played so far Dragon Age 2 is hardly representative of technical excellence. Low res textures, unimpressive effects, and a unstable framerate - mainly in the cut-scenes - can make for a unsightly experience at times. However, there's no doubt that the game looks much, much better than the first. Characters contain more detail, and the 360 build features an all round improvement in IQ. While PS3 users get the benefit of a vastly superior AA solution.
However, the demo is but a mere taster of what the game will have to offer. At least both versions seem to be almost on a par now. Performance aside - which still suffers more in gameplay on the PS3 - things are looking a lot better for Bioware's latest. But for an engine that is boardering on being five years old, upgraded for this sequel, one can only wonder just how far it will take them.
With the final game out in only a couple of days, I guess that we won't have long until we find out. If we get time, then expect an update. Hopefully we can also bring along a few comparison vids to the table too.
The PS3 usually gets the short end of the stick when it comes to multiplatform conversions. Just look at the likes of Red Dead Redemption or Bioshock, with their sub-HD rendering resolutions and use of screen blurring anti-alising techniques. Or, in the case of the latter; no AA with a simple blurring of the image instead. Of course, on the other side of the coin you have titles such as Vanquish, which commanded a tiny lead of its 360 counterpasrt with slightly better overall performance. And Mass Effect 2, with improved shadowing and athestically more pleasing lighting.
The original Dragon Age Origins almost found itself in the latter catagory; a game in which PS3 owners gained additional graphical upgrades in the form of increased texture filtering and better depth of field. While neither version looked particularly great - a fault of the game rather than the consoles inhability to run it - it was Sony's black box of tricks that, at first glance, came out on top. Except for in terms of performance: it was pretty dire in this regard.
Given the mediocre graphical look of the last game, the team at Bioware have stated on various occasions that they planned to improve on the visual make-up and engine powering the series for Dragon Age 2. And in the recent XBL and PSN demo, we can clearly see a few key changes. But most of all a tangible improvement all round, with the 360 build more than matching up to - and exceeding in certain areas - the PS3 code.
360
PS3
The most obvious of these upgrades on both formats, is that the characters and environments in the game feature better use of normal mapping. There are a range of surfaces that appear curved and have a noticeable depth to them. By comparison, in the original Dragon Age many parts of the game featured fairly low resolution, flat textured areas of the environment, with characters that lacked some of the additional effects present in this sequel.
Of course, some of the low resolution elements remain. But here we also see an abundance of mixed hi and low resolution textures, and some key, higher quality elements interwined.
The armour on some of the characters for example, features low resolution textures, whilst some of the surrounding clothing uses higher quality ones. It's quite a visual discrepancy to say the least, with some very obviously poor texturework shoehorned into more detailed areas. On PC this varience is further enlarged. But, thankfully, on consoles appears much less of an issue.
360
PS3
In terms of the framebuffer, we see both versions rendering in 720p. The main difference here, comes in the form of anti-aliasing used in each version's graphical make-up. On 360, we get the standard issue 2xMSAA solution, while PS3 owners are granted a custom take on another MLAA implementation.
While we all know how MSAA works, MLAA is a somewhat lesser known beast. Despite being given a specific title, MLAA can feature a wide variety of implementations, each dealing with the scene a little differently. Universally though, they all have one thing in common: they only work on the finished rendered scene - basically as a post process on the framebuffer before it gets displayed on screen.
The choice of opting for MLAA makes sense when dealing with both consoles impacting memory contrasints compared to the PC, and especially on the PS3, whereby the additional processing power of the CELL allows you to free up more GPU cyclers for other tasks. And in Dragon Age 2, this seems to be the key reason for its uptake on Sony's platform: Better edge smoothing with less impact on memory and processsing requirements compared to MSAA.
360
PS3
As you can see above, this is definitely true. Pixel edges are smoothed over incredibly well, matching MSAA sampling well over the 4x limit a select few 360 titles employ. Naturally, you don't get any sub-pixel coverage or accuracy when dealing with MLAA. Although this seems to be far less of an issue in Dragon Age 2. On the PS3, the game looks even cleaner compared to its 360 counterpart. The AA is superb, and not just for a console title.
That said, there is another small niggle that comes with Bioware's custom form of MLAA. And that is the unwanted side-effect of blurring texture details. Essentially, all MLAA-based solution work around a purely edge-detect method of sampling: you find the pixels which look like an edge, and then apply the smoothing algorithm. However, with no geometry information to extract additional data from, you are left at the mercy of how effective your algorithm is at deciphering a legitimate edge, and faux-edges of sorts found in contrasting parts of a texrture map.
It's evident from the screens that in Bioware's case, the end result has very little impact on the image overall. Yes, there is some blur, but it is nothing overtly noticeably, nor does it really impact in any meaningful way. It is largely incosequencial.
So, in that respect, the PS3 versions gains the upper hand with regards to overall IQ, with better edge-sampling coverage, and with little in the way of annoying sub-pixel issues. Then again, DA2 looks clean and sharp on both platfroms. But it is definitely cleaner on the PS3.
360
PS3
360
PS3
Outside of the framebuffer make-up there is very little to seperate the two versions at all with regards to their graphical look. Lighting, like with Mass Effect 2 appears to be handled a little differently across both versions, although this has little imapct with no one version appearing better than the other.
You can see the key indicator in the screenshots above. Notice how the specular reflections are in different places in both versions in the second shot, whilst the actual frame captures are the same. Colour tone also appears to be different too, seen clearly in the first batch of screens. Compared to the huge variance in Mass Effect 2, the lighting between versions is significantly closer.
360
PS3
Also, the use of alpha-based effects, such as the flame effects in the cut-scenes see some small changes when comparing both games. They seem to be represented a tad differently on both platforms.
360
PS3
Dragon Age 2 also features the use of self-shadowing across all platforms (PC, PS3 and 360). However, the effect looks to have been given a weaker implementation on the PS3. You can see in the shots above. The PS3 game appears to feature much lighter self-shadows, but also missing them on certain parts of the characters. The the impact from the beads around the character's neck, for example, barely cast a complete shadow in the above screens by comparison.
Outside of this, bar the way certain effects are handled, both versions are actually visually very close. There are a few passing oddities, but nothing remotely enough for either version to command a solid lead in this respect. The use of MLAA is by far the most impacting factor in the PS3 code.
360
PS3
One area of the original Dragon Age that left a lot to be desired on the PS3, was its performance. It's safe to say that BioWare's first outing suffered at the hand of numerous framerate drops causing heavy slowdown. By comparason, the 360 game, although slowing down, maintained its baseline 30fps for longer stetches than on the PS3.
Here in the demo code, we find similar traits manifesting them selves during gameplay. Although it is also apparent that progress has definitely been made in this regard. Seeing as the demo is rather short, and that I've only been able to access the first part of it, its far to early to draw any solid conclusions. However, the fact remains that performance still the biggest factor seperating the two versions.
Dragon Age 2 opts to target a 30fps update, and runs with v-sync solidly enabled. As a result, we find that the game never tears but instead drops frames as it struggles to keep up with the renderer. Rather than the 360 leading on all fronts, here we see a difference in performance in both gameplay and in cut-scenes.
Gameplay-wise, both builds start out at 30fps. And both maintain this very well in the absence of any load. Simply running into a group of enemies, hacking and slashing away rarely leads to much, if any slowdown. Throw in a large foe into the works surrounded with five or six smaller adversaries, whilst strafing around and spining the camera, and we find that both versions will slow down to around the 20fps mark or so. But the defining element appears to be alpha-based. Effects like smoke and fire cause the PS3 game to drop frames more often, and lower down than its 360 counterpart.
Cut-scenes operate a little differently. Here we see heavy drops below both the 30fps and 20fps mark. However, it also appears that these drops are slightly less severe on the PS3. Even though at times, both slow down in equal measure. Just like during gameplay, large creatures and specific effects are the root cause - when there's little going on to stress the engine, both run smoothly at 30fps.
360
PS3
From what we've played so far Dragon Age 2 is hardly representative of technical excellence. Low res textures, unimpressive effects, and a unstable framerate - mainly in the cut-scenes - can make for a unsightly experience at times. However, there's no doubt that the game looks much, much better than the first. Characters contain more detail, and the 360 build features an all round improvement in IQ. While PS3 users get the benefit of a vastly superior AA solution.
However, the demo is but a mere taster of what the game will have to offer. At least both versions seem to be almost on a par now. Performance aside - which still suffers more in gameplay on the PS3 - things are looking a lot better for Bioware's latest. But for an engine that is boardering on being five years old, upgraded for this sequel, one can only wonder just how far it will take them.
With the final game out in only a couple of days, I guess that we won't have long until we find out. If we get time, then expect an update. Hopefully we can also bring along a few comparison vids to the table too.
Dragon Age 2 Gets Texture Boost On PC
While it was previously common to assume that multiplatform titles on the PC would automatically benefit from featuring much higher quality art assets, in recent years this hasn't completely been true. Sure, PC gamers get higher resolution textures and higher quality/additional effects, but usually these are far off from pushing what is capable on the platform.
Dragon Age 2 may be another one of those games, one that is built around working on both consoles and the PC. But there's also no doubt that the PC version will end up vastly superior, if the original game is anything to go by. However, despite this Bioware have released a hi-res texture pack for their upcoming sequel, enhancing it even further.
Available from their website now, the download, which comes in at around 1.08GB, replaces many of the lower resolution assets with much more highly detailed ones. The downside, is that you'll be needing a graphics card with at least 1024MB of VRAM, along with using Direct X 11 to maximise this potential.
In a world where tailoring around the needs of the now low-spec consoles takes precedence, it's good to see some companies doing at least a little more with their PC releases. Although, a texture pack pales in comparison to the high-end specifics of both Crysis 2 and EA's recently unveled Battlefield 3, both of which look to fully take advantage of todays top-end PC hardware.
Dragon Age 2 may be another one of those games, one that is built around working on both consoles and the PC. But there's also no doubt that the PC version will end up vastly superior, if the original game is anything to go by. However, despite this Bioware have released a hi-res texture pack for their upcoming sequel, enhancing it even further.
Available from their website now, the download, which comes in at around 1.08GB, replaces many of the lower resolution assets with much more highly detailed ones. The downside, is that you'll be needing a graphics card with at least 1024MB of VRAM, along with using Direct X 11 to maximise this potential.
In a world where tailoring around the needs of the now low-spec consoles takes precedence, it's good to see some companies doing at least a little more with their PC releases. Although, a texture pack pales in comparison to the high-end specifics of both Crysis 2 and EA's recently unveled Battlefield 3, both of which look to fully take advantage of todays top-end PC hardware.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
