Bionic Commando: Bling Wars

Capcom's Bionic Commando on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 appears to have received mixed reviews, but the reaction from the Digital Foundry team members pretty much mirrors Tom's critique - the game's great fun and well worth a punt regardless of the console platform you might happen to own. However, we can't completely ignore the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the v-sync problems in the Xbox 360 version, so DF team member MazingerDUDE took an involved look at the game on both console platforms to get to the bottom of the performance differences.

As you might expect, Bionic Commando is based on the same Diesel engine that powers GRIN's other recent cross-format title, Wanted: Weapons of Fate, so many of the comments and complaints levelled at that game in Face-Off 19 are equally relevant here. The most disappointing aspect is that the native resolution remains at sub-HD levels, specifically 1120x640, on both platforms. Additionally, the Diesel engine's lack of v-sync on 360 remains in effect on Bionic Commando, whereas the PS3 version benefits from improved image coherency thanks to zero tearing whatsoever.

The tearing issue is an important factor - this is no Resident Evil 5 where the torn frames accounted for around five per cent of the video output. Just like Wanted, the lack of v-sync is a virtually ever-present factor, and the tearing can appear pretty much anywhere on-screen - typically the more towards the centre of the screen it is, the more it is noticed by the human eye. This factor alone may skew owners of both consoles towards the PS3 version, especially as frame rate seems like-for-like, by and large.

The Xbox 360 version does have some unique properties though, with the inclusion of SSAO (screen space ambient occlusion), lacking from the PS3 build. These 'contact shadows' are subtle, but serve to add a lot more depth to the scene. Alongside the v-sync, overall it's probably the most noticeable difference between the two games.

Onto lighting: Bionic Commando appears to employ the NAO32 pixel format on PS3, allowing for the inclusion of HDR, which can dramatically transform the appearance of a given scene when deployed. Its weakness is the lack of alpha channel (hence a heavy flickering artifact on the blinds in the second shot). The Xbox game on the other hand seems to use the more conventional FP10 format, only offering a medium dynamic range, but alpha is available to the developers.

As we saw before in Wanted: Weapons of Fate, the Diesel engine manages to make its pixel shaders work harder on PS3, resulting in superior normal map and specular effects on the Sony console. By way of some compensation, it seems that GRIN has retooled some of the textures on the 360 version, as seen in the bottom set of pictures in the last gallery, where more detail appears to be resolved.

It's rare that we see so many differences in a cross-format title, so Bionic Commando is indeed well worth this more in-depth coverage, but in terms of the most impactful effects, it's definitely a case of SSAO versus v-sync. PS3 has the latter, 360 the former... Full video breakdown, more comparison shots and the final verdict forthcoming in Face-Off 20...

Comments (7) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Widge #1 3 years ago

    I just can't get excited by the game sadly.... at no point in time have I ever thought "I'd LOVE to see a new Bionic Commando!"
  • Darren #2 3 years ago

    It's quite surprising to see an increasing number of PS3 games having no tearing versus tearing on the Xbox 360... 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, Resident Evil 5, GTA IV, Fallout 3 and now this game. Yes, in the case of Fallout 3 the cost is no AA and a stuttery framerate but isn't the Xbox 360 supposed to have the better graphics hardware?

    Why do so many games on the Xbox 360 have screen tearing anyway? It's because of this that I've pretty much switched to the PC for multiformat gaming as my new 6 GB Core i7 system with GTX 280 graphics is powerful enough to play all these games natively at 1080p, with zero tearing and with lots of AA.

    I know console hardware does invariably date, and rather quickly because of how fast PC technology moves, but it's nevertheless depressing that so many 360 and PS3 games still cannot muster a true 1280x720 resolution, despite them promoted as High Definition consoles. PC's managed resolutions of 1024x768 and 1280x960/1024 over a decade ago for almost every single game!
  • Zappa #3 3 years ago

    PS3 clearly looks way better.
  • photoboy #4 3 years ago

    Heh, I thought the game looked lower than 720p as I was playing it on the 360. It's disappointing they couldn't make the effort to make the game run in a true HD resolution.

    Generally screen tear doesn't bother me, but it is quite a nuisance on this game. But then again, it doesn't matter much as I've given up on it after getting stuck on that stupid library section where you get attacked by waves and waves of enemies without any checkpoints.
  • myke6699 #5 3 years ago

    The 360 seems to lose details in the shadow areas. Because of that, Cartier Bresson prefers the PS3 version over the 360.
  • Geordiemp #6 3 years ago

    Grin = wanted, Bionic and terminator.

    Remind me to never buy a GRIN game
  • ps360 #7 3 years ago