Face-Off: Bodycount

By David Bierton Published 3 September, 2011

Fade to Black.

Page 1 of 2
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.6GB 5.59GB
Install 5.6GB (optional) -
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM

Conceived as the spiritual successor to Criterion's much-loved Black, Bodycount fails to make an impact on the battlefield, delivering an experience that feels rushed, unpolished and to a certain extent unfinished. It's a bitter blow for those hoping to get a current-generation taste of what made the Burnout makers' FPS so much fun to play. In that respect, the baton has been passed to EA stablemates DICE, and we can only hope that Battlefield 3 is the game that delivers.

The main talking point in Bodycount is the inclusion of destructible environments. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that it does very little for the gameplay experience. Sure enough, windows and doors can be blasted to pieces, ceilings collapse, and walls are routinely demolished, but the range of destruction on offer is limited to specific objects, leaving this element of the game feeling somewhat basic in nature. It's a shame, because some of the environments on offer - a meagre five if you care to count - do come across as being fairly well designed, if a little small.

But what about the multi-platform conversion aspect? Has Codemasters' new Guildford studio successfully provided a graphically solid experience on both formats? How well does the core technology hold up to handling a fast-paced shooter, where the rendering load can be particularly unpredictable?

A video comparison of Bodycount on Xbox 360 and PS3, running at 50 per cent speed. Use the full-screen button for full 720p resolution, or click the link below for a larger window.

Unfortunately, as our head-to-head video and Bodycount 720p comparison gallery reveal, the results are particularly disappointing. There are a number of issues that impact on the visual consistency of the game, ranging from poor image quality, low-resolution effects, and unstable performance, all of which serve only to distract you from the gameplay on offer. In truth, many of these problems are more than likely down to the unoptimised and unpolished nature of the final product, rather than the underlying technology behind it.

In terms of native resolution, both games appear to be sub-HD. Bodycount appears to renders at 1024x720 on the Xbox 360 and 1024x640 on the PS3, both featuring post-process anti-aliasing. Image quality is noticeably better on the Microsoft platform, with smoother edges and less in the way of blur. There's visibly more detail on offer in some scenes too, although the differences we see are larger than what we'd expect to find from a mere 80-line deficit - there's another important factor at play here, and perhaps that comes in the form of the anti-aliasing on offer.

It's difficult to speak with absolute authority on the latest forms of advanced post-process anti-aliasing (their impact on image quality seems to change on a game by game basis) but it seems to be the case that FXAA is used on the 360, which appears to deliver ample coverage over and above what 2x MSAA (multi-sampling anti-aliasing) would usually provide. Sub-pixel details also benefit from some smoothing too, at the expense of some slight, additional blurring. Along with the upscaling taking place, things do look a little soft, and there are still some unsightly edge artifacts in full view, particularly evident in smaller environmental details.

360-aa1
ps3-aa1
360-aa2
ps3-aa2

A couple of comparison shots designed to illustrate the difference in resolution and the impact that the post-process anti-aliasing technique(s?) have on the overall image quality. There's a definite blur on 360, which is emphasised still further on the PlayStation 3 version.

Quite what is going on with the PS3 version isn't as clear. Another post-process anti-aliasing solution definitely appears to be present, but which one - custom or otherwise - we can't say for sure. From the nature of the pixel structure, our best bet is that some kind of simpler edge filter is being implemented, which seems to blur the overall image somewhat whilst providing poor coverage in comparison to the solution found on the 360. Alternatively, it may simply be the case that the same filter as the Xbox version is being used, and it just doesn't perform as well on the lower-resolution framebuffer.

While the basic rendering set-up obviously impacts on the overall quality of the artwork, we also find that a few assets have been either pared back or are missing on the PS3, although generally speaking both versions are still pretty close. For example, some of the textures dotted about the environments are a little lower in resolution, appearing less detailed as a result. Texture filtering takes a hit, with the sometimes harsh mip-map transitions hinting that a trilinear solution is present, rather than a low level of AF (anisotropic filtering). Also, we see that there are fewer plants and foliage elements scattered about the landscape, along with some that are smaller and less detailed. All of this suggests that Codemasters struggled to an extent with the split memory setup of the PlayStation 3.

Overall, this leads to parts of the environment on the Sony console looking a touch more barren in places, with clarity and sharpness also taking a hit. Some of these differences only really stick out in a direct A to B comparison, so generally don't jump straight out at you when playing normally. A minor plus point to bear in mind is that the PS3 game appears to have a very minor advantage when it comes to the engine steaming in higher quality assets.

360-foliage
ps3-foliage

There are a number of small visual cutbacks on the PlayStation 3 version of the game. For example, in this shot you can see that foliage elements on the bottom-left have been pared back.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (51) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • irrelevanthuman #1 9 months ago

    Informative and interesting as usual-not that anyones going to buy the fucker anyway.

  • dragerboy #2 9 months ago

    What a pointless face off. The only facts we have are - Game looks shit on Xbox - Game looks shit on PS3 - Game is shit on both formats.

  • metalangel #3 9 months ago

    I know, eh? What a strange choice of game to analyze, why not Drivel: San Francisco, given the huge song and dance they're making about their 60fps engine?

  • riceNpea #4 9 months ago

    Bodycount gets the treatment? Don't dilute your good work analyzing poorly developed games.

  • Triggerhappytel #5 9 months ago

    Why bother comparing a shite game no-one gives a toss about?

  • spiritsnake #6 9 months ago

    Why dont criterion just make a sequel to black, or another fps with the same spirit as Black, id buy it in a second!

  • nemesisND1derboy #7 9 months ago

    Leaving the differences in quality aside for a moment, the game runs at 1024x720, so it's not even HD, it runs at less than 30 FPS most of the time, and the screen tearing is pretty noticeable, not to mention the game generally looks like ass.

    What were Codemasters doing? A lot of devs have done a lot more, much better looking games that can at least do 720p at 30FPS.

  • koga-dave #8 9 months ago

    You can't polish a turd

  • koga-dave #9 9 months ago

    You can't polish a turd

  • randompanda #10 9 months ago

    Codemasters - pretty much says it all.

  • wizlon #11 9 months ago

    This article reminds me of the tagline for Aliens V Predator:

    "Who ever wins, we lose"

  • Torkin #12 9 months ago

    Digital Foundry mostly analyzes FPS and racing games, even if those games are shit. And the occasional Mass Effect. Is it because that's what people buy?

    What about other games? What about japanese games?
    Edited by Torkin at 03/09/11 @ 11:44

  • _LarZen_ #13 9 months ago

    The game looks like utter crap...

    And as usaly the PS3 looks bland and the X360 gama is crazy.

  • TopKatt #14 9 months ago

    Well at least I know which system I would have bought it on if it wasn't crap.

  • Lord_Gremlin #15 9 months ago

    I don't get it, why do a comparison of a shit game nobody will even buy? Normally this stuff is supposed to help people with several platforms to choose which version to buy, but in this case it's just same advice for all formats: avoid this garbage.

  • greekgoddj #16 9 months ago

    DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM > Dolby Digital, yet that never gets mentioned.

  • NHDavid #17 9 months ago

    The Demo is total shite!

  • tazket #18 9 months ago

    cant image anyone buying this piece of shit after the shitty demo.

  • Badassbab #19 9 months ago

    Unless I missed it where is the Driver face off?

  • Quixz #20 9 months ago

    Whats a crap game, might pick it up if it has easy achievements for no more than £10.

  • LEONOFDEATH #21 9 months ago

    Yeah, The demo was a major disappointment for me.
    There were so many explosive barrels and barely any destruction anywhere. It was like the barrels were used as a distraction.

    Killzone 3 has about the same amount of destruction. All i could really find in both was a few pillars and doors. Killzone is the better game though.

    This game dosent have a place in my collection.

  • LEONOFDEATH #22 9 months ago

    A disappointing choice of game too. I already knew it was bad.

  • BonzoBanana #23 9 months ago

    Wow in that video there is about 3 enemies that he practically walked right up to and they still didn't fire back. Haven't seen AI like that for a while. Still reckon its worth a punt when its a tenner or less.

  • sam90 #24 9 months ago

    DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM > Dolby Digital, yet that never gets mentioned.
    Not quite right. Look at the game's sizes - they are identical. More over, ps3 version size is slightly less. How can there be high quality lossless sound, if the game's sizes are identical? It's just means, that all the sound assets are identical across the platforms. Only thing that ps3 does is transcoding lossy compressed sounds into LPCM, which is pointless from quality point of view.

    And it's just doesn't matter. Majority of gamers won't even notice higher quality sound, even with hi-fi sound system. You need certain skills to notice quality difference.
    Edited by sam90 at 03/09/11 @ 15:37

  • Korpers #25 9 months ago

    You big bunch of heartless meanies.

    Am I the only one that feels empathy for these poor developers that probably worked really hard with good intentions and unfortunately finished with a product that didn't come together as they'd expected, and are probably reading these spoilt consumer comments?

    Personally I'd say, better luck next time chaps, and take whatever you can from this experience so that the same mistakes aren't made next time.
    Edited by Korpers at 03/09/11 @ 15:41

  • Cobalt_Jackal #26 9 months ago

    @Sam90

    "And it's just doesn't matter. Majority of gamers won't even notice higher quality sound, even with hi-fi sound system. You need certain skills to notice quality difference."

    What utter BS. I'm sorry but your talking out of your ass. Its not difficult at all to notice higher quality sound. Again i'm affraid your talking nonsense there.

  • sam90 #27 9 months ago

    @Cobalt_Jackal
    "What utter BS. I'm sorry but your talking out of your ass. Its not difficult at all to notice higher quality sound. Again i'm affraid your talking nonsense there."
    To you - maybe. To me - maybe. To majority of gamers - it's difficult.
    Edited by sam90 at 03/09/11 @ 15:48

  • metalangel #28 9 months ago

    @Korpers: They're a business, not a charity!

    They have to win our custom with a good quality product. If they can't bother producing one, are you suggesting we feel sorry for them and buy it anyway out of pity?

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #29 9 months ago

    Post deleted at 15:13:18 09-05-2012

  • Korpers #30 9 months ago

    @metalangel

    You raise a good point sir, I just can't help but feel sorry for the devs reading this thread with glassy eyes and a bottle of whisky. I'm not suggesting we buy it of course, just perhaps a slight injection of compassion.

  • metalangel #31 9 months ago

    @Korpers: If you go back to the news article when the demo was released, I mused at length that there IS a place for non-AAA games like this. The short version is that if they were to have released this during the summer games drought, at a lower price (£24.99 or less) it would be a fun little impulse buy. It doesn't stand a chance at full price in the fall, and publishers would do well to realize rather than allow new franchises like this to tank.

    Also, whisky is a good idea, pass me your glass.

  • technicianTed #32 9 months ago

    A bad game is a bad game, but i'd rather have the best version of a bad console game if i had the choice.

    Wait for the 360 version to drop to a tenner and it might be worth a quick go.

  • mumblyjoe #33 9 months ago

    @koga-dave

    Actually you can polish a turd

    youtube.com/watch?v=hBj6PonX14A

  • PixelPirate #34 9 months ago

    I would have prefered Criterion spent the time on a proper burnout game

  • xythen #35 9 months ago

    @nemesisND1derboy, not to be overly pedantic, but as you've probably noticed the key dimension when it comes to resolution is the number of vertical lines (hence 720p, 1080p etc.). Given that on the 360 it runs at 1024x720, then it is indeed running at 720p HD resolution, it just happens to be using an anamorphic frame, so is essentially using non-square pixels (1:1.25 as opposed to 1:1).

    As for all the other comments on here, it's a real shame that such vitriol can be produced by a game that most of you knew you were never going to buy in the first place. As I suspect one of the few who on here who was born before the mid nineties, I am not so dulled to the current gen graphics that I need top-tier performance in order to think it looks "good"; shit there are still some PS2 and Wii games that I've been looking at recently which I think look great.

    What most of you need to understand is that this was the output of a group of people who poured a lot of time and effort into it over the probably 2 or so years it was under development. A group who were likely under staffed, under experienced with the tech, and working 70 hour weeks under enormous pressure from the publishers to squeeze out the product before the big influx of AAA titles in the lead up to Christmas. Now as consumers it is absolutely our job to tell them why we are dissatisfied with the aspects of their game that didn't work, or why it doesn't meet our needs in terms of features, gameplay etc. But just saying "this is absolute shit!", and calling them every name under the sun is of no help to anyone. How can we expect new teams to create good games if they're not allowed to make mistakes, and learn from their failures?

    Let's be honest, if this game had been released even 4 years ago in the early lives of the consoles it would have gotten a much better reception. The real problem is not the game itself, it's the market it was released into. Marketing has indoctrinated us to believe that only AAA blockbuster titles are worth our time - indeed, there is only one pricepoint for new games - £40. Asking us to pay the same for this as, say, Deus Ex or Skyrim is obviously ridiculous. But sadly there is no B-movie equivalent in games, either from the publishers marketing or in the minds of the typical gamer. If this had been marketed as a budget game, and released at a £20 price point, I'm sure it would have done much better (ala Earth Defence Force).

    And finally, I found the article itself interesting. I'm not sure why there are so many complaints that the guys wasted their time analysing a poorly polished game. Surely, from a technical viewpoint, this is just as enlightening as a big budget release. It should serve to make us all appreciate the AAA titles even more, and realise how good the other devs are at pushing ageing hardware to its limit just to satisfy our constant need for better eye candy and more realistic explosions, lest they be decried for having "shit graphics".
    Edited by xythen at 04/09/11 @ 14:27

  • drjitz #36 9 months ago

    Fact of the matter is there's simply no room for 'average' in the first person shooter genre. Even if a game is released at budget price, it will be compared to COD, Halo etc, because older titles in those series are at budget prices and better games than the new budget titles. The developer and publisher are just as guilty as each other for trying to cash in on a popular genre, and all it does is tarnish reputations. Sadly this just reaks of a fancy marketing campaign to capitalise on MW3 hype to sell a few copies before the real deal comes out. Bargain bin come December.

  • wicked_uk #37 9 months ago

    I see what Sony means when they say xbox is holding devs back!

  • Murton #38 9 months ago

    This looks so promising when I saw an early alpha build in 2009. Looks like they haven't really made any progress since then, I mean Black on PS2 looks better than this. Just what have the guys at Guildford been doing for the last three years that they were making this?

  • zegerman1942 #39 9 months ago

    @Murton: making corny dev diary movies in an abandoned factory. And probably visited a lot of lady gaga gigs.

  • BartonFink #40 9 months ago

    So in summary, shit game looks less shit on 360. How surprising.

  • kongzi #41 9 months ago

    "Let's be honest, if this game had been released even 4 years ago in the early lives of the consoles it would have gotten a much better reception. The real problem is not the game itself, it's the market it was released into."

    You did notice how it only features 4 environments, lasts only a couple of hours, has crap AI and did you see the explosions??
    Group of motivated young developers under pressure.. my ass..it's an insult to gamers to sell this at full price next to some of the better games out there. There is DLC out there with more substance to it. It would be great if motivated young developers under pressure would recognize that their game isn't up there with the big boys yet and put it out at a budget price point. And screw them anyway.. they made another run of the mill shooter which adds nothing in terms of gameplay or creativity and failed. If you want symphathy try something new, and fail at that..

  • zegerman1942 #42 9 months ago

    @Kongzi: fair points mostly, but you do realize that the young developers under pressure probably had nothing to do with the decission to launch this game at full price, or launch it in the first place? That decission must have been taken by the studio heads and the Codies managment team. When it comes to shockers like Bodycount, i rarely blame the people who actually make it. I tend to look at the blame with marketing, sales and management - who want another title out there for a certain period of the financial year.And we all know Codemasters is not very good at making these decissions (other than with racing games that is). Anyone remember Jericho? Damnation? And Flashpoint too for that matter.

  • Diomedes117 #43 9 months ago

    @Cobalt_Jackal
    Wow, aren't you an idiot. Care to share your sound setup with us?

  • riseer #44 9 months ago

    The demo was so bad i didn't bother to finish it.The graphics look sooo bad i had to toss in Killzone 3 to get the horrorific images out of my mind.EG get the driver comparsion uo thxs..

  • kongzi #45 9 months ago

    @zegerman: I do realize that.. I know how the industry works...but the industry works like that because consumers work like that. As much as I symphatise, I'm not gonna buy it and you probably wont either. The era that a studio could do well with mediocre games is over, gamers want 90+ scores for shooters now. Most other publishers seem to understand this, even Activision in their own cynical way. Codies doesn't and it come across as if they think their customers are stupid. Big mistake in any business.

  • TheGuvernor #46 9 months ago


    Duke Nukem was total shite & people still lapped that up.
    I uninstalled the DNF demo after approx 4 mins - my computer went into anaphylactic shock.
    But I agree, there should be a B movie game equivalent & appropriate price point.
    Isn't that what Sniper Ghost Warrior did with some success?

  • zegerman1942 #47 9 months ago

    @Kongzi: Totally agree with you mate. Publishers try to get away with releasing shit thats not even worth 15£ let alone 40. All i am saying is that the people who actually made the game (programmers, designers and artists) probably are not to blame in this one, as they rarely are. What kind of boggles me is that nobody ever put a stop to this game. I wonder if internally at codemasters this was looked at and they thought "Oh hell yeah, this is a AAA 90+ shooter! we are going to sell millions!". Surely someone in the higher echelons of the company must have realized what a turd this was. So why continue pouring money into it. Is there no green-light process?

  • Darren #48 9 months ago

    A competent write-up about a terrible game... I am starting to think these Face-Offs should be reserved only for games EG award 6 or maybe 7/10 or higher to because, as others have said, no-one really cares about this game period (check out this week's sales charts for example where it entered at 36), nevermind which one runs/looks better!

  • greekgoddj #49 9 months ago

    @sam90

    "DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM > Dolby Digital, yet that never gets mentioned.
    Not quite right. Look at the game's sizes - they are identical. More over, ps3 version size is slightly less. How can there be high quality lossless sound, if the game's sizes are identical? It's just means, that all the sound assets are identical across the platforms. Only thing that ps3 does is transcoding lossy compressed sounds into LPCM, which is pointless from quality point of view.

    And it's just doesn't matter. Majority of gamers won't even notice higher quality sound, even with hi-fi sound system. You need certain skills to notice quality difference."

    You clearly don't know about digital audio, do you? The size of the assets on disc have nothing to with the output format (Dolby Digital, DTS, LPCM). The reason for the smaller assets on PS3 is down to the better compression.

    You suggest that the only benefit of LPCM is that it can be lossless (if the source is losslessly compressed). You forgot the extra 2 channels. You also forgot that LPCM does not need to be encoded at the console and then decoded at the receiver which has two issues: further quality loss, and additional latency.

    Most gamer's won't notice you say... really? You say this on an article that focuses on graphics details that most gamers also won't notice? I trust you see the contradiction. :o)

  • sam90 #50 9 months ago

    @greekgoddj
    "You clearly don't know about digital audio, do you? The size of the assets on disc have nothing to with the output format (Dolby Digital, DTS, LPCM)"
    Read again my comment. Here is what i said - " Only thing that ps3 does is transcoding lossy compressed sounds into LPCM, which is pointless from quality point of view.". Your sound assets are lossy encoded on the disk, it's a fact. Then you output it in LPCM format. You end up with lossy encoded sound, but decoded and then encoded with LPCM.

    "You also forgot that LPCM does not need to be encoded at the console and then decoded at the receiver"
    Read some theory (or read my answer in driver face-off) and then try to be smart.

    "You say this on an article that focuses on graphics details that most gamers also won't notice?"
    Most gamers will notice, because it's visual information. Human eyes significantly more developed, than ears. Every human can see subtle details in images, but not every human can even spot the difference between lossy and lossless sound (mp3 256 kbit vs lossless). It's just our nature. And because of that mp3 is leading sound format for music - majority of people just can't hear the difference. Again, majority - it doesn't mean all people.

  • greekgoddj #51 9 months ago

    @sam90

    Sound assets are converted from compressed to LPCM in order to be mixed by the sound engine. But for Dolby Digital (and DTS) you need to encode (loss of quality) the master mix, transmit to the receiver and then decode (loss of quality) it at the receiver before it goes into the DAC.

    With HDMI you avoid the two steps of encoding into Dolby Digital (or DTS) and then decoding again. That is what I am talking about. Do you still insist there is no advantage to LPCM as output format, aside from the extra 2 channels in 7.1 that I already pointed out)?

    Compressed asset->(decode to LPCM)->mix->(encode to DD/DTS)->surround receiver->(decode from DD/DTS to LPCM)->DAC

    vs.

    Compressed asset->(decode to PCM)->mix->surround receiver->DAC

    See the difference?

    Saying that people notice graphics more than sound etc is a matter of opinion. Most people on these face-offs comment how meaningless they are and that they can't see the differences. It is a "technical" face-off... and on technical grounds you can't argue that the extra encode/decode won't affect quality... even if you (or "most people" as you insist) can't tell.

    Drop a single frame of video and people won't notice. Drop a single 5.3ms audio frame and then tell me you can't notice that.

    Lastly, I have read the theory you speak of... that is why I do what I do for a living ;o)
    Edited by greekgoddj at 06/09/11 @ 22:32