Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2

PS3 comes out on top as Lightning strikes twice.

- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 7.7GB 14.06GB
Install 7.7GB (optional) -
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM

Final Fantasy 13 remains a technical marvel on PS3, but also a relative disappointment for Xbox 360 users who tolerated comparably worse performance, lower native resolution, and sub-par video quality for cut-scenes. The arrival of Final Fantasy 13-2 two years later brings with it a promise of change, where factoring in the development of both versions from the very start addresses many of these criticisms, but the question is whether console parity can be a reality this time around.

With the PS3 version of Final Fantasy 14 delayed until next year, this is the first chance we've had to see the changes made to Square Enix's "Crystal Tools" engine on home consoles since Lightning's first adventure. The improvements were already clear in our recent dissection of the demo, with the 360 version's native frame-buffer being bumped up from the 1024x576 value in the original to match the 1280x720 resolution of the PS3 version. To sweeten the deal further, both versions also benefit from the application of 2x MSAA (multi-sample anti-aliasing), which brings the image quality of each to an equivalent standing.

This inadvertently puts to right another major qualm levelled against the original: namely, the dithered alpha-to-coverage effect on hair. The "feathered" look used for practically all the characters' hairstyles is apparently a preference for lead character designer, Tetsuya Nomura, but did result in some nasty pixel crawl when combined with the lower resolution of the 360 version in the first game. Here, the look is still somewhat distracting on both consoles, with the pixellation on each strand being especially easy to pick out during the game's many zoomed, close-up shots of character's faces, but it's nowhere near as egregious as before.

Save for the slight dithering on hair, the game looks gorgeous from most angles. Although tricky to match all the visual elements, with NPCs in towns being dynamically influenced by surroundings, both games can look very closely matched indeed. Use the full-screen button for full 720p resolution.

Final Fantasy 13-2 looks absolutely stunning in every other regard, with some impressive use of light shafts around characters and trees when looking up at Cocoon's glow, and spectacular bloom effects around the Oerba level in particular. This is true of both versions, and there's very little to distinguish between either visually when it comes to matching frames in a like-for-like manner during cut-scenes, dungeon traversal or battle. You can see this for yourself in the range of assets we've prepared from both versions of the game, dotted throughout this article.

Image Quality and FMV: Can 360 Compete This Time?

It seems the core texture assets, particle effects and water shaders are identical across both platforms too, with texture filtering also now set to a similar quality on each. However, one of the bigger points of distinction we noticed in visual terms is the way shadows are rendered, with the 360's looking much fuller in places with fine detail. This is mainly perceptible on points such as tree branches or fingers, where the PS3's can look considerably different - although which implementation you prefer may be down to personal choice. This is in contrast to the scenario laid out in the first game, where the PS3 projected shade in areas where it remained entirely absent on 360, giving it a lighter, pared-back look (owing to an offset shadow bias). Fortunately, this time the visual tone of the environments appear to be much more consistent between the two versions.

"Final Fantasy 13-2's core texture assets, particle effects and water shaders are identical across both platforms, with texture filtering also now set to a similar quality on each and just minor differences in shadow rendering."

We noticed the shadow system suffers from some curious glitches too. Strangely, the filtering cascade on shadows around town areas like New Bodham will only be present when running from the direction of the sun, but never when running towards it. Essentially, this means a southward walk results in lower-quality, blocky shadows being produced everywhere, while doubling back on yourself allows the higher-quality shadows to pop in from a distance. This is a phenomenon common to both consoles, and given that the last game suffered from a glitch on 360 where all offset shadows clipped with the environment, this perhaps reveals a weakness in the engine.

On the topic of towns, their inclusion this time around has spurred Square Enix on to offer up more advanced AI routines for the NPCs that populate them. No doubt this puts an extra strain on performance, but where Final Fantasy's linear dungeon crawl could be a solitary experience, most areas throughout this sequel are filled with characters that have their own preset routines. It's more than a superficial touch too, as they'll talk to Noel when idle, grant quests, and also react with according aggression when an enemy pops up - immediately engaging in battle. This is a nice dynamic that creates the illusion that there are agendas in the game-world besides your own.

Another area in dire need of addressing was, and remains, the frankly atrocious FMV quality on 360, which continues to use the Bink codec in order to fit all its video content on a single DVD. Thankfully, Square Enix has side-stepped the severity of the problem by making sparing use of pre-rendered media, with a three-minute opening CG cut-scene taking up a majority of the space allocated for video. The layer of "grain" post-processing used for the black and white sections in this video causes the most prominent manifestations of compression artifacts, and will likely be noticed by even the most undiscerning player.

"Improvements to the engine have levelled image quality in many regards, but there's still a gulf in quality when it comes to the FMV video, which remains an issue on Xbox 360."

There are instances of video throughout the game which also serve to remind us of this compromise to quality. Outside of the lengthy introductory video, flashback video sequences are composited over the top of gameplay during the first few hours of the game to serve as a kind of memory jog for fans of the last game - a stylish technical feat which evidently requires further compression to the content to work. Loading a save also kick-starts a short video sequence which splices together the most recent events according to your chapter progress - a helpful reminder for the intermittent player which plays over the loading screen.

Having these videos run over the top of other processes has necessitated far more aggressive compression methods on both consoles though, and once again the artifacting is considerably more impactful on the on 360 as a result of its use of the Bink codec. We're a little disappointed that the PS3 version couldn't utilise the greater capacity of the Blu-ray here to improve quality further, with the original game's 33GB of overall video data being reduced to around 8GB in the new game. However, clearly this wasn't an option when it came to running these videos in tandem with actual gameplay and loading screens.

Performance Analysis

As far as performance goes, comparing like-for-like cut-scenes and traversal around towns or dungeons reveals a marked lack of optimisation on both consoles - especially in large industrial hubs like Bresha where the combination of rainfall and multiple NPCs can drag either version down to 20FPS. The frame rate also tends to fall between the 20 and 30 mark during cut-scenes, with the "cinematic action" ones featuring QTEs being particularly challenging.

Cut-scenes are without a doubt the most demanding part of the game, with the frame rate dropping to 15FPS at one point during interactive segments.

Regular actions, such as travelling down a boarded pathway to New Bodham, also result in a similarly jarring impact on performance, although we do find that the PS3 tends to command the more consistent refresh in frame rate. The rule of thumb, regardless of where you are, is that the PS3 will always hold out at up to 5FPS above whatever the 360's pushing out, with the best case scenario being that they'll match each other.

The causes for these drops seem to be mostly linked to multiple light sources and particle effects, as you can see in the scene where Noel and Serah are travelling to the Historia Crux for the first time, with lighting being cast from almost every angle. This also rings true during the "Prelude" section of the game with Lightning battling while riding on horseback, during which frames are dropped consistently whenever magic spells are cast by the enemy. Fortunately this whole sequence is a one-off in terms of placing a strain on either console during battle.

It's an odd reversal of results, in fact, with almost every battle sequence - from quick scuffles against regular minions to protracted bouts against giant, otherworldly bosses - sailing smoothly at the game's target 30FPS on both platforms, while cut-scenes struggle. It's rare for the game to hiccup when put in these scenarios, even with every character on the battlefield casting spells in synchrony. It's of great benefit to the game's playability that this is the case though, as the pace of its battle system relies on quick and regular use of the Paradigm Shift mechanic in order to stay afloat in battle - a critical demand on controller response at points.

"The rule of thumb is that the PS3 will always hold out at up to 5FPS above whatever the 360's pushing out, with the best-case scenario being that they'll match each other."

Regular battle sequences are very nicely optimised for both platforms, with the opening battles starring Lightning proving to be an outlier for these otherwise consistent results.

One final aspect of performance worth pointing out relates to the game's loading times. Given that Final Fantasy 13-2 is now heavily menu-driven, with the Historia Crux serving as your main time-hopping hub, splash screens featuring its logo become a regular fixture during the run of play after selecting from the 30+ areas available. Climbing up to the 40-second mark in the case of travel to Bresha 005AF, these waits can be a nuisance when considering how the fragmented nature of the game demands that you switch between locations regularly in order to locate different artifacts, and then their corresponding gate.

Running the 360 version from a HDD install does afford the console a small advantage over the PS3 in this regard, with six seconds being shaved off the clock for most destinations. Similarly, selecting retry during battle or skipping a cut-scene is much faster when installed, which can help when "Locking" a level in order to replay events, for which you sometimes don't want to see the story being played out again and again.

Final Fantasy 13-2: The Digital Foundry Verdict

Taking all these points into account together though, there's no doubt that it's the PS3 version that we'd recommend if given the luxury of choice. With Final Fantasy 13-2, Square Enix has managed to pair the overall look of both versions very closely due to their matching framebuffers and identical assets and effects. As far as image quality is concerned, FMVs on the 360 still stick out like a sore thumb due to some extreme levels of compression, although this is made more tolerable by virtue of their infrequency. However, it's the edge in performance that the PS3 offers - usually ahead by 5FPS at any one time during town stages and cut-scenes - that makes it the version to vouch for.

Although the Crystal Tools engine once again favours Sony's console, we are nevertheless impressed that the gap has narrowed this time. If the rumours surrounding yet another entry in the Final Fantasy canon have any merit, we hope this is a trend that can continue once again before the generation comes to a close.

Comments (37) Latest comment 3 months ago

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

  • wez_316 #1 3 months ago

    I went with the right version then. Really nice to see that 360 got a much better deal this time though.
  • SeesThroughAll #2 3 months ago

    Could it be that political/business decisions of which system to prioritize always are what really determines which version looks best?
  • Cid #3 3 months ago

    It's actually surprisingly good. A considerable improvement over XIII.
  • Aurain #4 3 months ago

    @SeesThroughAll Not likely. The PS3 and 360 have very different system architecture and the engine was designed with the PS3 in mind. Due to that, the developers have to use different methods to get the game working properly and this sometimes results in differences, usually in framerate. Compromises have to be made too.
  • Gaol #5 3 months ago

    Agree with Cid. It's a lot better than it's predecessor, though could do with being a bit more difficult.
  • SeesThroughAll #6 3 months ago

    @Aurain Combine the idiosyncrasies in system architecture with time constraints, and a decision to which system to support in a timely fashion will often need to be made. Such a decision usually is commercial.
  • Zerobob #7 3 months ago

    I personally won't be playing this game as I've always found FF is able to escort me to a new level of boredom.

    However, I still find it a little unbelievable they can't even get the FMVs looking crisp on the X360. After all is said and done, it's just video!

    If it's a disc space issue, just release on 2 discs. Maybe even provide an option to download uncompressed versions of the FMVs for people on XBL. It just seems like an aspect that could have been far better with not much effort, really transforming the overall experience.
  • makeamazing #8 3 months ago

    @Zerobob The thing with two disks on Xbox is that the publisher has to pay more money to create additional disks (I am not talking about the cost of DVD disk here but the cost they have to pay to MS for each disk). So they may improve the quality of the FMV, but it will cost them a lot more to do so. I suspect that the PS3 version will sell more based on previous releases, so it comes down to cost vs sales and if its worth doing... which they've decided not to (which i don't blame them to be honest).

    With the next Xbox having something like Blu-Ray, then it won't be a problem.
    Edited by makeamazing at 12/02/12 @ 14:17
  • frazzl #9 3 months ago

    I have had to install 2 updates for the 360 version (I have my reasons :D) and the slowdown I have encountered is infrequent at best. For example the slowdown ridden Atlas battle in the demo went down without a hitch when I played the full game. My brother who owns the PS3 version has also had 2 updates and he too hasn't encountered any significant slowdown. Was this comparison done before or after the most recent set of updates?
  • Chibi-Kibou #10 3 months ago

    Okay, so I'll just drop this here while I remember...
    With the PS3 version of Final Fantasy 14 delayed until next year, this is the first chance we've had to see the changes made to Square Enix's "Crystal Tools" engine on home consoles since Lightning's first adventure.
    While I do really appreciate bothering to reference the FF XIV rebuild effort, I don't think you're going to see Crystal Tools on the PS3 again - at least, not when the PS3 version of Final Fantasy XIV releases/enters beta in January.

    Yoshinori Kitase's team's repurposing of Crystal Tools for use in an MMORPG, on which FF XIV presently runs, was deemed inadequate for the purpose - not just due to the modified version being an over-demanding, inflexible piece of code-spaghetti, but also because it couldn't handle more than 40 or so characters on screen at a time. Bad for any MMORPG, but crippling in the face of the company vs company mass combat v2.0 has in development.

    v1.X was supposedly running in-house on Crystal Tools on the PS3 before Naoki Yoshida took over, however according to him it was a highly stripped down version. Final Fantasy XIV v2.0 (PS3) will, according to interviews and like the PC version, be running on a custom built engine that draws from the development of Luminous. It isn't Luminous, apparently, so much as some sort of built-with-MMO's-in-mind half-brother. It'll also be DX11 rather than DX9 >.>

    *returns to reading*
    Edited by Chibi-Kibou at 12/02/12 @ 17:51
  • Nielz0r #11 3 months ago

    For the love of god, how many times are you going to recycle the "Lightning Strikes Twice" gag?

    Other than that, thank you very much for the very helpful comparison :)
  • Emperor_Rosko #12 3 months ago

    20-30 FPS, fuck that, get this shit on my PC so I can play 60fps with hi-res textures and AA. Consoles are just holding everything up! Throw them in the bin, they're done with, please can we move on! Its the fucking 21st century and we're still messing about with consoles that are 7+ years old....
  • werewolf_poo #13 3 months ago

    I do not see the point in all this rubbish. Both systems are so close when it comes down to how the games play and run. Pointless looking at it for every multiformat release. I can hardly pick up any differences from the videos or the pictures, its not like its a massive difference like skyrim when one works and the other doesn't.

    Unless your some sad fanboy that takes pride from these sort of things then just buy the games you like.
  • DrStrangelove #14 3 months ago

    *awaiting comments about EG being PS3-biased*
  • inutaihanyou #15 3 months ago

    Glad that versus 13 scrapped Crystal tools and is now working with a custom game engine.

    I hope that game shows what the PS3 is capable of atleast once before the console generation is out
  • wattsn26 #16 3 months ago

    I find this funny since Microsoft is paying for Square Enix's FF XIII-2's advertising
  • super_monty #17 3 months ago

    As I own both machines these articles are rather good, I will go with the ps3 version a couple of months down the line. Cheers.
  • Bander #18 3 months ago

    I'm glad Square Enix went with a frame rate drop on the 360 this time, rather than a resolution drop. It's a turn based RPG, so the frame rate doesn't have an impact on the game at all. The much loved FFVII had an abysmal frame rate most of the time.

    Shame that the loading times can be annoying on both versions though. When I read about loading being quicker on the 360 if the game is installed, in my head it became a 360 win. But I don't currently have enough hard drive space spare to take advantage of that.
  • flattie #19 3 months ago

    @inutaihanyou I would argue that the Uncharted series has pretty well demonstrated what the PS3 is capable of already.
  • Kendalf #20 3 months ago

    I don't think anyone's really surprised by the outcome of this comparison, are they? Although I bought for PS3, I'm glad to hear the 360's got a much better deal this time, though...

    Anyway, why I'm really posting is just to say how much I'm liking this game at the minute! The improvement over XIII cannot be overstated; in fact, it reminds me of the improvement between AC and ACII, it's that noticeable.

    Square Enix are to be congratulated, in my book, for responding to the fan and critic feedback so comprehensively. They got it wrong first time; the richness of this game is their way of admitting it. Well done.

    Now, please, you've learnt your lesson; don't balls up FFXV in the same way!!
  • cloudskipa #21 3 months ago

    In RPG's like this the difference of an average 2 fps is not noticable nor does it matter. I'm happy to see the Xbox version had a little bit of effort put into it this time around though.
    Running the 360 version from a HDD install does afford the console a small advantage over the PS3 in this regard, with six seconds being shaved off the clock for most destinations. Similarly, selecting retry during battle or skipping a cut-scene is much faster when installed.
    That's a fairly substantial difference imo. I'd probably choose the 360 version based on that alone.
  • JumpinJackFlash #22 3 months ago

    Interesting read from a technical point of view. But personally, i just can't play JRPG's anymore, they bore the shit out of me now.
  • wattsn26 #23 3 months ago

    Why can't more western developers work to improve on performance issues on sequels for the PS3? At least Square Enix to the time to fine tune the 360 version of FF13-2.

    Kudos to Valve, Visceral, and Team Bondi I suppose...this is what Bethesda should be aiming for with their next game
  • Badassbab #24 3 months ago

    Im so surprised the SDF from LOT haven't made a comment about the 360 holding the PS3 back. Or that it looks worse than FFXIII thanks to the 360 lol.
  • MavSkipper #25 3 months ago

    I have to say that I really like this sequel more than the original. Unlike with XIII, I don't need to force myself just to play this game.

    I don't usually read these "face-off" comparison stuff because most of them are biased(IMO). I got curious and surprisingly, I read it 'til the end. T'was a good one.
  • cloudskipa #26 3 months ago

    @wattsn26 I'd hardly call this finely tuned for the 360, it was always an engine that was built for the PS3 first and foremost, it's just with this game they've had more time to work on the 360 version a bit more but I would not say any game that runs at a sub 25fps with lazy video compression is "fine tuned".

    They could and SHOULD of put the game onto 2 disks and not sacrificed the video quality. If they could do that for the PS1 FF games then they should for the 360.
  • Badassbab #27 3 months ago

    @cloudskipa

    Or they could've kept it a PS3 exclusive like it was supposed to have been and just focused on the one platform.
  • Smoped #28 3 months ago

    @Badassbab I guess budget considerations eliminated that possibility. This gen, when the customer base is so evenly divided between consoles, it's probably pretty difficult to justify console exclusivity for an AAA game if you're not a first party developer.
  • telboy007 #29 3 months ago

    @Smoped @Badassbab Yep this, I imagine Square Enix need the money quite badly so multi-platform releases are a necessity. Still, I'm happy because of this I can play FF games on my 360. :)
  • pro_interesting #30 3 months ago

    Xbox fanboy's on damage patrol is funny: "what does frame rate matter when loading times are shorter?"

    @Cloudskipa - So by your logic the PS3 version of Skyrim is better because load times are about half of what they are on the 360. Fanboy
  • RKOwned #31 3 months ago

    Hey, can I ask a question (and please, only serious people answer). What is the state of multiplatform on 360 and ps3 today? I know that yesteryear they were rather poor on ps3 and I know things have improved alot since the beginning. But are they really equal on average? I know skyrim is a case where it was better on 360, but what about most games. Have we reached a point where the average game looks identical? Or is it still just better to get them on 360 in most cases? I’m asking because I want to start gaming on my ps3 more often than I do, but don’t want to play multiplat on there if its still better to get them in 360.
  • pro_interesting #32 3 months ago

  • ballshock #33 3 months ago

    Would like a PC version
  • Retro_ #34 3 months ago

    @cloudskipa I'll be getting the PS3 version for the improved FMV / Framerate / Sound quality ( no doubt ). Saying that, a whole six seconds..... WOW, what am I thinking, I must get the 360 version instead!!! ffs, what a cock!
  • Bander #35 3 months ago

    @pro_interesting The time it takes to get a game started or change from one area to another in this generation is really annoying, and it puts me off even booting my console most of the time. I can't just play something for 10 minutes between other tasks, like I could with cartridge and CD-ROM consoles. I love arcade games. They are often designed to be over in 3 minutes. In that time, my 360 wouldn't have got to a title screen.

    6 seconds between gameplay is more noticeable than 0.016 seconds between every sixth frame or so. Especially outside the action genre. I've not got Skyrim, but if that's true, and there's no other crippling differences, halved loading times would make that version superior.

    It'd be nice to know in advance if the next consoles will be fully backwards compatible, and able to offer faster load times for this generation's games, via SSDs or something.

    Did anyone else notice that I got +ed for saying pretty much the exact same thing as cloudskipa. I imagine that won't happen twice.
  • ProfDrMorph #36 3 months ago

    Nice face-off (as always ;) ). While I agree that the Bink video codec is an awful abomination which should be purged from existence I can somewhat understand why they still use it (aside from laziness and maybe the cost involved in licensing a new codec): Bink uses only a fraction of the processing power required by more sophisticated codecs like VC-1 or H.264. FF13-2 sometimes shows videos inside the real-time rendered 3D world thus a more bitrate-efficient codec might slow down the game too much in those (rare) cases.

    I still would've preferred if they hadn't used videos in that way (meaning no videos inside the 3D world) and instead switched to a better codec. I can't imagine that switching to VC-1 (on the 360 at least) involves that much work or cost. It's a Microsoft codec after all... this would still create subpar video quality (H.264 is better than VC-1) but it would be a significant improvement over Bink.

    Oh, and I don't really get why they still use alpha-to-coverage instead of proper alpha blending. The 360's 10MB GPU cache should make the latter really efficient (on MS' console at least).
    Edited by ProfDrMorph at 13/02/12 @ 19:11
  • Srift #37 3 months ago

    hahah xbox360 users do get all pissed when their console nose dives...
    Edited by Srift at 16/02/12 @ 20:56