Face-Off: Blur

By Richard Leadbetter Published 28 May, 2010

Here comes the fuzz.

Page 1 of 2
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.4GB 6.75GB
Install 5.4GB (optional) 1217MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM, DTS

Digital Foundry hearts Blur. Eurogamer has already gone into depth about why the game is so good to play in its review, but this appreciation is only strengthened when you experience the scale of the technical achievement on offer: full 720p resolution, high levels of anti-aliasing, up to 20 cars on-screen at any point, a large, highly detailed rear-view mirror, masses of post-processing effects, no LOD popping. The list goes on.

So, PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360? The stakes are high. What we have is a title that pushes technical barriers in pursuit of an overall gameplay experience that is quite unique: tech deficiencies will impact the overall look and feel of the game. Bearing in mind the legion of technical accomplishments, surely something's got to give?

Let's get to work. It's time to wheel out the comparison assets, starting with the 720p comparison gallery, and this head-to-head movie:

Direct Blur comparison on PS3 and 360. Use the full-screen button an HD view or click the link below for a larger window.

Blur is a remarkable and singular technical achievement, especially in relation to what Bizarre Creations achieved with Project Gotham Racing 4 (still a great-looking game itself). The number of cars on-screen at any given point has increased, the amount of effects in play can be quite overwhelming, and overall image quality has been boosted too.

In-game, PGR4 ran at native 720p with 2x multisampling anti-aliasing. For Blur, the 360 version actually runs with 4x MSAA - the best the machine's hardware is realistically capable of delivering.

There's a definite look and feel to a Bizarre Creations driving game. Artwork has a precise, correct, technically "right" look to it. There's a huge amount of attention-to-detail in making sure that every piece of art, every visual effect, fits into a particular type of super-refined CG aesthetic. That being the case, the inclusion of the full-on 4x MSAA complements the art perfectly: it adds to the refinement. It's the icing on the cake.

This is the only major point of differentiation in terms of the look and feel of the game when comparing to the PlayStation 3 version. It's rare that we see 4x MSAA implemented on PS3 at all, and in terms of your AAA driving games, only Gran Turismo 5 Prologue possesses it. In cross-platform fare, 4x MSAA on 360 is often substituted with quincunx AA (QAA) on PS3, but for Blur Bizarre has opted for 2x MSAA with a half-pixel, bilinear-filtered edge blur.

'Face-Off: Blur' Screenshot aa360-1
'Face-Off: Blur' Screenshot aaps3-1
'Face-Off: Blur' Screenshot aa360-2
'Face-Off: Blur' Screenshot aaps3-2

Anti-aliasing implementation is effectively the only noteworthy visual difference between PS3 and 360 versions. There's 4x MSAA on the Microsoft platform, with 2x MSAA plus a subtle blur on PS3.

In terms of the overall look, the lack of 4x MSAA slightly diminishes that final layer of visual refinement, but it's hardly a deal-breaker, and PS3 has its own advantage: support for every surround sound format that the hardware can do. (All Xbox 360 titles are limited to 640kbps Dolby Digital 5.1.)

Onto the performance tests. As usual we've put together a series of comparison tests showing the same levels running on PS3 and 360. Usually this gives us a good perspective on how titles perform in a like-for-like scenario.

However, in the case of Blur, gameplay variation is rife - varying amounts of cars are on screen and different effects are in play at any given point, so we can only really gauge general conclusions about each platform as opposed to a more direct head-to-head. The results are quite enlightening though.

Four laps of Blur from multiple tracks and game types. There's remarkably solid performance on both systems considering the scale of what's being rendered at times.

In our coverage of the Xbox 360 multiplayer beta, we were taken aback by just how solid performance was. Frame-rate was locked at 30FPS, and v-sync was doggedly maintained without exception.

In the final analysis of the full retail game, performance remains absolutely astonishing bearing in mind how rich the action can be; Blur maintains 30FPS even with masses of cars and effects on-screen. Bizarre's achievement here really has to be seen to be believed: there's no lag in the controls, no slowdown on-screen.

The sense is of a game that runs in an absolutely rock-solid manner. However, as you can see from the graphs, Blur does occasionally drop out of v-sync.

The perception on 360 is that some of the heavier post-processing effects can prove too much for the renderer in certain, rare situations. On PS3, it appears to be more the case from our testing that sometimes (rarely, as the tests show) the sheer amount of cars and effects does incur a significantly larger load that causes the tearing.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (53) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • GamesConnoisseur #1 2 years ago

    Good for Bizarre Creation to be able to do a great job of a multi platform title, and as we all know multi platform is where the business at.

  • byron_hinson #2 2 years ago

    Glad there was a bit more mention of sound this time as that makes a difference to me when deciding which version to buy

  • INSOMANiAC #3 2 years ago

    I havent read this but does it go something along the lines of
    ;
    'The 360 version looks marginally better but the game is great to play on either system'

    Because that usually what these things consist of.

  • thebuzzard #4 2 years ago

    If you dont have intel/nvidia it also looks very pretty in my PC with AMD 965 and 5870, perfectly smooth at 1680x1050 8x AA.

  • sfp_noodle #5 2 years ago

    A remarkable achivement for Bizarre Creations considering that they only made 360 games at one point. The games were indistinguishable in those comparison videos and screenshots. It begs the question - if one developer can do it, why can't Valve bring their considerable talent over to PS3? Surely Bizarre has proved that it really isn't that difficult.

  • cianchristopher #6 2 years ago

    I dunno, racing/sports games always seem to do pretty well in Face Offs (Burnout Paradise, DiRT 2, this, FIFA, Fight Night).

    It's shooters that fare a little worse on PS3. (The Orange Box, Far Cry 2, Rainbow Six, Resident Evil 5).

    And open-world games seem to do even worse again (RDR, GTA IV, Saints Row, Assassin's Creed).

  • Darren #7 2 years ago

    Actually Split/Second on the PC *does* have anti-aliasing, or at least appears to, but only on the Very High setting as I bought the game last night and was playing it before work this morning. Even with a Core i7 920 @ 3.2 GHz and two HD 5870 graphics cards in CrossFire mode running at 1920x1200 though the game dips to the low 20s fps at times which is shocking when you consider how much more powerful my PC is over the consoles.

    I'd say the game doesn't even feel as smooth as the Xbox 360 version (also capped at 30 fps) and even on Very High there's noticeable object pop in, likely because of the higher resolution. Black Rock Studio don't seem that adept at converting their games across to the PC very well IMO. There's a compulsory tutorial that starts before you can set the graphics options for example, just like PURE, and when you're using an Xbox 360 controller the on-screen prompts refer to keyboard mappings so you have the initial confusion of not knowing what button does what. Sloppy.

    I'm hoping Blur runs a lot better than Split/Second but from what I've read here and on other forums it seems that it's a more ideal "conversion" than Black Rock Studio's game. At least it isn't needlessly capped. Looking forward to playing it tomorrow.

  • TopKatt #8 2 years ago

    I'm still torn between this and Spilt/Second. :(

  • sfp_noodle #9 2 years ago

    @ cianchristopher

    Actually, I played Assassins Creed 2 on my PS3 and saw nothing wrong with it whatsoever. The only thing mentioned in Richard's face off that I noticed was the tearing. Even that wasn't anywhere near as severe as mentioned. The game looked beautiful.
    Edited by 2 at 28/05/10 @ 15:13

  • Geordiemp #10 2 years ago

    @Cian

    Rubbish, its just the developer and if they program for EDRAM or SPU.
    Edited by 1 at 28/05/10 @ 14:46

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    Oh and I'm surprised that Digital Foundry are throwing so much praise at Blur's graphics. Most of the reviews I've read have described the visuals, cars aside, as being bland. Not something I agree with personally, mind.

  • digoutyoursoul #12 2 years ago

    nice to see multiplatform taken care of properly for a change instead of bickering between console drones.

  • cianchristopher #13 2 years ago

    Alright, alright...

    I just pointed out one-or-two (perceived) trends.

    Of course, there's lots of exceptions to my (hilariously scientific) list of games.

  • cianchristopher #14 2 years ago

    @Darren

    Tell us more about your PC....

  • HarryPalmer #15 2 years ago

    This is how it should be.

    Want this game bad.

  • Vitor #16 2 years ago

    Interesting stuff - being an owner of all 3 gaming systems, it's always fun to read these comparisons (and insightful too).

    Wish they'd do a full one for Split/Second on the PC though as, despite the fact that I did choose it over Blur knowing full well it's nowhere near as well made a port (I'm more into singleplayer racers so Blur never really interested me as much despite how much more depth it appears to offer), I would like to know just what DF think of this trainwreck of a PC conversion by Black Rock (not necessarily in terms of performance as long as you forgo AA and stick with 'High' instead of 'Very High' settings but in the unchangeable resolution for the tutorial, the lack of accurate button overlays instead of keyboard keys when you plug in a controller and the absence of a retail UK release in favour of an extortionate digital download only monopoly by Direct 2 Drive at an eye watering £39.99 when Blur can be had for around £20 new...
    Edited by 1 at 28/05/10 @ 15:31

  • JohnnyWashnGo #17 2 years ago

    Well done to Bizarre - it sounds like they have done a cracking job on all platforms.

    I have too many games to play at the moment but when I get more time, Blur is on the list of games to get.

  • DoctorFouad #18 2 years ago

    Interesting !

    I didnt read it yet, but if the PS3 version turns out to be the better version, than I would be surprised considering the developers were xbox360 exclusive developers...(same thing must happen when insomniac release their game on 360)

    I will edit after reading

    Edit :

    So I was right ! the 360 version outperform the ps3 version (very logical given the more bandwidth more powerful less constrained GPU and given that Bizarre mastered already the art of developing on 360) 4x AA vs 2x AA

    but well, lets wait for E3 to see what developers could do with ps3 when they take the system as a whole (CELL + RSX working together in harmony and efficiently) : Motorstorm 3, Killzone 3, little big planet 2, GT5, resistance 3...and maybe some suprises awaiting us (like God of war 1 did in E3 with PS2) and in the future Uncharted 3, the new santa monica game....I cant wait !
    Edited by 1 at 28/05/10 @ 18:09

  • Anthony_UK #19 2 years ago

    Intresting, especially as alot of people have dismissed Blur as looking like a Live Arcade game rather than a full priced product.

  • Pinky_Floyd #20 2 years ago

    PC for the foot stompin', granny shaggin', disco dancin', motherfuggin' win!

    Except for split second, which is just horrendous on the PC.

  • Pinky_Floyd #21 2 years ago

    Also DF? Ask ATI nicely and they'll send you a decent graphics card that won't make you sweat over summer.

  • Sharzam #22 2 years ago

    Why no comment on Ati graphic cards, by most accounts there pushing out some amazing cards so even loyal nvidea people are switching.

    Would be nice where on the Ati scale you need to be, i have a 5770 1GB for example its around the level of a GTX 260 in some games and in others it beats it so would be nice to know. The GTX 480 is powerful but also not very popular due to cost and that Ati equlivants are simply better. Also the same could be said of CPUs, why no mention of the 6 core AMD processors or even there 965 which has stock speed of 3.4ghz (and cheaper than a i5) i know this isnt as important but just thought mention it.

    (not saying nvidea dont make great cards, they do. Just saying that be nice to see how ATI and AMD stuff is with games)

    edit: agree with comments about split/second, i always prefer my PC when there is a choice and intreastingly i was more for split/second than blur but this may change my mind.
    Edited by 1 at 28/05/10 @ 16:37

  • Pinky_Floyd #23 2 years ago

    Only Nvidia cards in DF towers. The sluts.

  • Miths #24 2 years ago

    I'm glad to hear the PS3 version is good (still enjoying RDR very much, but two relatively poor PS3 versions within a week of each other would have been a bit much). I just picked up Blur today, but unfortunately I won't actually get home to play it until Sunday.

    I considered buying the PC version, but it sounds like my Geforce GTX 260 might be struggling. And apparently Blur doesn't support wheel/pedals anyway, so if I have to use a pad with a racing game I might as well do it from my most comfortable chair, and that's the one parked in front of my TV and PS3.

  • monkeywithnoeyes #25 2 years ago

    @miths, didnt you already get that with Lost planet 2?

    I do think adding the pc versions in these face-offs is pretty damn pointless when you can always sum it up in a single sentence of "if you've the hardware then you've the superior visual experience". It would be ALOT more informative if rather than gushing over it looking better on PC hardware thats probably 3 times the expense of 5yr old console hardware, they should rate it running at the min spec on the box - as thats the introductory level that most pc gamers that invest in it will at the very least get to enjoy.

  • BBIAJ #26 2 years ago

    @ Darren:

    Black Rock Studiod didn't convert Split/Second: Velocity to the PC themselves, it was outsourced.

  • VandelayIndustries #27 2 years ago

    How pleasant it is to have a choice in multiplats rather than defaulting to the 360 every time. Good work Bizarre!

    @cian
    Just Cause 2 was also decent on PS3 :)

  • Tallon4 #28 2 years ago

    great read and well done BC

  • Trigga_Tybalt #29 2 years ago

    It's amazing how less bitchy this comment section is when the platforms perform evenly.

  • Killerbee #30 2 years ago

    Picked this up today on PS3 and it's good to read that this is a solid version of the game that is more or less on a par with the 360 lead version. Well done to Bizarre Creations!

  • Feanor #31 2 years ago

    Glad to hear the PS3 version is pretty good. Since my PC is three years old (E6420 @ 2.13 GHz, 320 MB 8800 GTS) and do kinda like getting Trophies, I'll just go with the Sony version.

  • Feanor #32 2 years ago

    "I really wish we got native v-synced 1080p as standard on consoles"

    The HD consoles were finalized in 2005 and 2006... they're just not capable of that level of performance in most games.

  • neems #33 2 years ago

    As far as Split Second on pc goes, apparently it is a true port ie a third party did the conversion, not Black Rock themselves. Supposedly if you select the 'Very High' graphics option it uses the maximum level of AA your card is capable of, rather than a realistic amount that won't bring your system to its knees.

  • Miths #34 2 years ago

    "@miths, didnt you already get that with Lost planet 2?"

    Could be :). I had no interest in that game so I admittedly haven't been reading much about it.

  • o_ci2007 #35 2 years ago

    Spot on.

  • DoctorFouad #36 2 years ago

    I dont like using PC for video games, for many reasons :

    1- I hate wasting hours of my life for every PC game I play just to tweak and find the best most efficient options for my hardware. (how much anti aliasing ? which level of graphics very high or high ? which resolution ? how much texture filtering 8x or 16x anisotropic filtering ? v-synch or no v-synch ? 60 fps capped or not capped ?...etc and all the combinations)

    2- new drivers, compatibility issues, bugs, slowdowns, patches, problems..it is always the same story for PC games, it was rare for me to insert a PC game, install it and play normally, there is generally a problem or problems that bother me and I need to waste hours in internet trying to find solutions on forums...

    3- add to this that I prefer console controllers over keyborards and mouses...(except of course for strategy games, or maybe FPS games, but playing a football game, a racing game or a combat game with a keyboard mouse is very incomfortable)

    ...etc

    With consoles : I insert the game and I play ! knowing for sure that I am getting the exact experience intended by developers !

  • brod #37 2 years ago

    @thebuzzard
    "If you dont have intel/nvidia it also looks very pretty in my PC with AMD 965 and 5870, perfectly smooth at 1680x1050 8x AA."

    I would bloody well hope so - that setup is complete overkill for gaming at 1680x1050. Get yourself a proper monitor :)

  • TaniumZX #38 2 years ago

    @ DoctorFouad

    Exactly.In a nut shell. +1

  • Tiel #39 2 years ago

    I would have agreed with dr fouad until recently.

    The gap between consoles and pc's is now such that a mid priced pc can easily out-perform a console even taking into account the fact pc's can be buggy etc.

    I bought an i5 with a 4870 card, and now enjoy every console game at super high definition, and most importantly with a silky framerate. I've really noticed the difference on games like dirt 2 which feel so smooth on the pc.

    As to controllers--I have the best of both worlds. I use my 360 controller for console ports and it gives an identical experience.

    I spent years 'abandoning' the pc arms race, but this is the right time in the hardware cycles to get into pc gaming.

    Most games now auto-update the same way consoles now do regularly, and have similar systems for playing online (for free!)

    Finally, I save loads of money as newly released games are always at least a tenner cheaper, and if you are patient the price tends to fall far more rapidly on the pc than the consoles.

    Just my opinion, and I have all the consoles and each experience has something unique, but right now I'm re-discovering an old flame.

  • chaywa #40 2 years ago

    Does the PC version come with split screen (i know the consoles can render 4 players at once with some natural visual degradation) and native 360 controller input?

    Seems as though Biz have done a fantastic job on this one (although I despise the Activision influence in the marketing)

  • zztopp #41 2 years ago

    I am surprised that DF is fawning so much over Blur's graphics. The engine is smooth, the lighting effects excellent, and its great having 20+ cars on screen at once but other sites have complained about mediocre texture work and car models. Overall, Split/Second actually looks to be more technically competent. Perhaps a DF Face-off article comparing Blur and Split/Second would be more interesting..

  • thesonglessbird #42 2 years ago

    I bought a shiny new ATI 5870 yesterday...and this happened to come out the same day. Boom. Runs great. I'm on an Intel Q6600 too.

    Pretty decent game so far too.

  • djed #43 2 years ago

    N@
    Hm, by the sounds of it my 5850 couldn't achieve a solid 60fps@1080p.

    I'm pretty sure it would be able to do 1080@60, but perhaps not with maximum anti-aliasing and texture filtering etc.

  • Nebula #44 2 years ago

    For PC it is a bad simple port with sub par visuals and average perfomance for what it renders. Shift looks immensly better with more advanced rendering tech, detail and perfomance.
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/10 @ 22:37

  • ronorra #45 2 years ago

    Just FYI, but for some bizarre (!) reason they omitted the ability to configure your own keybindings in the PC version... I can't express how mindboggling stupid Bizarre was for not even implementing a way to configure controls.
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/10 @ 17:19

  • Quixz #46 2 years ago

    @N@

    According to the Russian site that Richard linked in the article your card gets 59FPS at 1920 X 1080 with AA X8.

    Link added.

    http://tr anslate.google.com/translate?js...
    Edited by 1 at 29/05/10 @ 22:34

  • freakzilla #47 2 years ago

    30fps. No sale.

  • RKOwned #48 2 years ago

    hmm, so I guess this ended in a tie between 360 and PS3? Good to hear. Although, I found that I disagree with some stuff DF says. In their SSF4 comaprison images, they showed that both versions where equally as vibrant, but when I palyed both versions on my HDTV, I noticed the 360 was quit a bit mroe vibrant, and it didnt look as close as theyre images showed.

  • RKOwned #49 2 years ago

    BTW: I think I much perfer these individual comparisons shortly after the game comes out instead of waiting two months for a big article comparing 5 or 6 games at once.

  • RodHull #50 2 years ago

    I know these DF comparisons are all about the graphics, but when there's essentially a draw then maybe factors such as controller preference should be considered? I'd choose the 360 controller for racing games thanks to the concave analogue sticks being less slippy than the concave PS3's. Any other factors folk think maybe important?

  • obscured021 #51 2 years ago

    I got the pc version and it rocks, i played the beta on the 360 and its the same game only it looks a bit better on the pc main thing i noticed was the frame rate 60fps@1080p i run at 2x aa to keep it at 60

  • Clover4ever #52 2 years ago

    "offering an overall experience and quality level that surpasses many first-party 360 exclusives. Great stuff."

    Fixed

  • azix2 #53 2 years ago

    The game doesn't look good. Still checking the gameplay but so far its boring. If it has 4xaa and 720p on the 360 with a steady 30fps u can bet it lacks in terms of whats actually being shown. The environments are bland and contain little, the cars aren't that well modeled as I can see evidence of low polygons.