Tech Analysis: Ico and Shadow of the Colossus Collection HD

By Richard Leadbetter Published 10 September, 2011

PS2 vs. PS3 vs. 3D vs. emulation vs. anything else we can find.

Page 1 of 3

As development of Sony Japan's The Last Guardian enters its final stretch, the platform holder has finally released its high-definition PlayStation 3 remakes of the new game's predecessors: the epic Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.

To ensure a quality product, Sony handed off the conversion work to Bluepoint Games - the development studio that handled the original, really rather superb God of War Collection, who in turn worked closely with the original developers to ensure an authentic recreation of the games.

It's safe to say that this is the most eagerly anticipated high-definition remaster since Bluepoint's debut outing, so we were especially curious to see how the conversion would be handled. Could the original games scale up to high-definition resolutions and still retain their magic?

Let's kick off by taking a look at the HD remastering of the game that started it all: Ico. Initially planned for the original PS1 console, its protracted development period eventually saw it appear on CD for PlayStation 2 some four years after producer Fumito Ueda first devised the concept.

While elements such as lighting, detail and animation were clearly ahead of their time, there are some hints of the game's less technologically advanced origins. Base resolution for Ico is a rather low 512x224 (going up to 512x256 in PAL mode, with a frame-rate reduction to 25FPS), with the title actually forcing the PlayStation 2 hardware to forego a traditional interlaced video output in favour of low-resolution progressive scan.

The low resolution of the original release means that an HD remaster presents both challenges and opportunities. In scaling up to either 720p or 1080p, the chance to "unlock" the full detail of the original artwork is mouth-watering (as we tried to showcase in last year's Ico/Shadow of the Colossus HD emulation piece), but at the same time the danger remains that there just isn't the quality in the original assets to present a viable high-definition experience - exactly the issue we had with the first two games in the recent Splinter Cell remakes.

So, how has Ico turned out? Here's an initial comparison of the extended introduction sequence, with the PS2 version compared with the new HD "remix". Owing to the relative simplicity of the visuals, h.264 video compression is that much more effective, so while most of our comparison videos need to be slowed down we can run this one at full-speed with original audio. (If you're not keen on our full-screen switching edit, a continuous A to B comparison is also available.)

The intro sequence of Ico running on PS2 in its original guide up against the PS3 in 720p mode. Ico does actually support native 1080p. Use the full-screen button for 720p resolution or click the link below for a larger window.

The immediate impression you get from the HD version of Ico is that Bluepoint has done a good job in making the visuals shine in high definition. The low-resolution "fog" has lifted, allowing the full detail of Team Ico's original art to be PROPERLY appreciated. There's also a "full pixel" mode that liberates the PS3 version from the borders of the original game, giving the game much more real estate on-screen - boosted all the more by the move from the original's 4:3 aspect ratio to the full 16:9 widescreen experience.

Ico also runs at three different resolutions, depending on how the PlayStation 3's XMB is set. Go for the default standard 720p and you get the expected 1280x720 framebuffer, with MLAA implementation - a good choice for a game like Ico. With Display Settings at 1080p, Ico delights with a native full HD framebuffer, again with MLAA applied - making it the first full 1920x1080 title we've seen to be running the computationally expensive post-process, providing a wonderfully crisp, eye-pleasing image. Switch over to stereoscopic 3D, and we have full 720p resolution per eye - again with MLAA engaged.

The situation is somewhat different with Shadow of the Colossus. The original PlayStation 2 game, released in 2005, pushed the hardware to the limit (resulting in the wildly uneven performance level) and it appears that this did cause Bluepoint some difficulties.

Despite official word from Sony that both HD remasters support "full 1080p HD resolution for a stunning, razor-sharp presentation", Shadow of the Colossus appears to have some issues with fill-rate, resulting in the game supporting native 720p and an upscaled 1080p that sees a base 960x1080 resolution upscaled horizontally, resulting in obviously rectangular pixels.

This gives a 12.5 per cent resolution advantage to the "1080p mode", but the fat pixels may be more distracting to the eye than letting your display simply upscale the normal 720p output.

Again, MLAA is supported on all modes - fine for 720p and 3D - but not so good on the scaled 1080p mode. As pixels are being expanded horizontally by 100 per cent, the sub-pixel crawling issues we sometimes see with MLAA are amplified somewhat. The standard 720p output is our choice for the best balance of picture quality and performance, and is the basis for this comparison movie (also available in a straightforward A to B head-to-head format).

13 minutes of Shadow of the Colossus, running on PlayStation 2 in its original guise and on the PS3 at 720p. Due to the upscaling, we prefer this mode over the 1080p support. Use the full-screen button for 720p resolution or click the link below for a larger window.

As you can see from the comparison video, native 720p proves to be a phenomenal improvement over the original and frame-rate is very, very solid. While the resolution boost isn't quite as revelatory as it is in Ico (like for like, PS2 Colossus is pumping out twice as many pixels as PS2 Ico), it's remarkable just how much detail is resolved from the shift to high-definition.

The question is, to what extent have these games been retooled to "work" within the much larger amount of visual real estate available on PlayStation 3? After all, with Ico, that original 512x224 framebuffer accounts for less than six per cent of the available resolution available at 1080p.

Different approaches have been taken with both games. Bluepoint could have redrawn textures to produce the remastered versions, increasing detail but perhaps compromising the vision of the original developers. Instead, for Ico at least, the way forward appears to have been to repeat the original textures, giving a much busier look to the game but without the need to use anything other than the core artwork.

There are occasions in the comparison movie where it appears that the PS3 is operating with much higher-resolution textures, so we undertook an experiment to determine whether new art had been generated or whether the detail increase was simply unlocking the potential of what was already there.

ico1-720p
new1080p
ico1-ps2
ico1-emu

A comprehensive Ico face-off: PS3 720p vs. PS3 1080p vs PS3 vs PC emulation! It's safe to say that the PS3 in full HD mode offers the best experience for playing this magical game. In these shots you can get an example of how the artwork has been improved in the remastering process. Click on the thumbnails for full res shots. (Updated: 1080p screen capture fixed.)

Going back to the open-source PCSX2 emulator, we ran Ico at an unimaginably high resolution with FXAA applied, and compared screenshots with the original PS2 title and the PS3 game running at both 720p and 1080p. In some sections where we thought we were seeing completely new artwork, we see pretty much exactly the same result that we get on PS3 - the resolution increase serving to "unlock" the latent detail in the original artwork.

However, there did appear to be sections where more detail, different detail, was being resolved indicating that in some places, brand new assets appear to have been introduced.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (53) Latest comment 8 months ago

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

  • Sabreman64 #1 9 months ago

    I think I'll give these remakes a miss. I've got the original PS2 versions (which I'm ashamed to say I never got around to playing) and so I think I'll just dig them out of the loft and play them on my PS2.

  • CaptainQuint #2 9 months ago

    The Xbox version is prettiest. This I know for a fact.

  • TheNonk #3 9 months ago

    Am I the only one that skips through these three page nerdathons to get to the closing synopsis (which admittedly IS worth reading)?

  • Cowbomb #4 9 months ago

    Amazing, can't wait to play these. Slightly disappointed they couldnt get SotC running at 1080p properly, but ahh well.

  • Yuroko #5 9 months ago

    Great article, after the lackluster review. Shame about the 3D performance on SoTC, been trying to talk the missus into buying a new telly and this would be my first 3D game.

  • carlosdfn #6 9 months ago

    Fantastic article. It's a joy to see ICO in 1080p and with MLAA to boot!
    It's a shame SOTC's 1080p isn't perfect but 720p at rock solid 30fps will do just fine. That video really shows how bad the framerate was on PS2.

  • Spungles #7 9 months ago

    I would love to play through SotC again in HD. But don't have a PS3 and don't think I can justify it for a game I've already played through 3 times.

    Its an interesting question as to whether they should update the assets. I would say they should, the originals were created and optimised for an SD medium. But I would also want someone from the original art team involved.

  • Arwin #8 9 months ago

    I'm in the lucky position that I've only ever tried some of the demos of either game, so this could be one for me for sure.

    Also, there really aren't enough of these kinds of games.
    Edited by Arwin at 10/09/11 @ 12:25

  • carlosdfn #9 9 months ago

    Framerate in 1080p is actually pretty solid going by the video.

  • Lunastra78 #10 9 months ago

    Is it still possible to control Yorda with controller 2?

  • BobbyDeNiro #11 9 months ago

    I remember finishing SOC when it first came out. Never played ICO. Will probably get this but for some reason I don't now like the idea of stabbing a great friendly giant in the head like in the last video of this article. Must be getting soft in my old age

  • VandelayIndustries #12 9 months ago

    Are Bluepoint doing the MGS HD set too? Love to see what original games this lot could do after this extended education in the classics of last gen and the technology of this one.

    Oh and the 30Fps cap came from Ueda himself IIRC not Bluepoint.

  • ZuluHero #13 9 months ago

    And we are damned lucky to get a second chance at playing these gems. I hope people appreciate them this time around! :)

  • peeps #14 9 months ago

    The difference between ps2 and ps3 is huge. the ps3 versions of both do look stunning, especially ICO. I never played the originals but think I'll be renting this collection

  • GANGSTERKILLER #15 9 months ago

    Nice analysis DF, like always. But nothing about the audio? Does this collection support 7.1 LPCM? Looking forward to play this HD collection.

  • MattyD #16 9 months ago

    I want to know which versions have been ported. In the PAL version of Ico there were some secret areas and slight changes to some of the puzzles which weren't in the NTSC versions. And in SotC there was an exploit whcih allowed you to climb to the top of the central tower and reach an area where some of the cut scenes take place.

  • Horse #17 9 months ago

    I wish they'd improved the geometry in Ico for the remake. There are some scenes where the sparse polygon budget for background items looked natural on the PS2 given the SD resolution but on HD looks far too angular.

  • Cappy #18 9 months ago

    Are Bluepoint doing the MGS HD set too? Love to see what original games this lot could do after this extended education in the classics of last gen and the technology of this one.

    Bluepoint only seem to work on Sony's games, the Metal Gear collection will be handled by Konami. The handling of Silent Hill 2 so far doesn't give me a great deal of confidence. Expect something halfway between Ubisoft's appalling, slipshod efforts and Sony's remasters.

  • taurus82 #19 9 months ago

    But how are they on a 1080i TV?

  • Vortextk #20 9 months ago

    These do support 7.1, but I'm unfamiliar with audio to know if that can only mean lpcm or if there is something else it could be with that setup..

    Developer(s) stated they didn't want to change the feel of the game for 60fps so stuck to 30, though technically a solid 30fps does indeed change the entire feel of SOTC.

  • lavalant #21 9 months ago

    It's weird as I kinda miss the dodgy framerate of the PS2's SOTC, it gave the colossi kind of a stop motion effect and as well all know stop motion is great!

  • Miths #22 9 months ago

    Excuse me for the harsh language, but I'm so fucking pissed off with developers (or more likely, the console hardware) not even being able to get stable framerates out of remastered last generation games when running them in 3D.
    It's more than annoying enough that we have to settle for visual trade-offs or sketchy framerates in 3D in the graphically intensive, new PS3 games, but that it's also the case for some of these remasters is a damn tragedy.

    Bring on the PS4 please. Everyone who says the current generation of consoles still have a lot left to give clearly don't own 3D TVs.

  • VandelayIndustries #23 9 months ago

    Cappy, just checked Bluepoint's website and they are doing MGS 2&3, but not PW.

  • SvennoJ #24 9 months ago

    960x1080 or 1280x720 for sotc. Too bad they couldn't squeeze out 1280x1080. It would be useful if you could switch resolution in game without resorting to the xmb. Lifting the blurriness could be damaging. The same as a low res you tube video of a game can make it look so much better then it really does on a big screen.
    Anyway in the end it's the game play that matters and that can only benefit from a steady frame rate.

    @Miths I agree time for the ps4. I would like to see some more native 1920x1080 games before upgrading again to 3D. Don't expect 1080p60 3D next gen, that will be another gen away. Seeing as sotc can do 4x the fill rate on ps3 compared to ps2, I don't think any non arcade games can manage 9x the fill rate going from 720p30 to 1080p60 3D.

  • lunaluagua #25 9 months ago

    ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE, the ONE thing that matters the MOST out of ANY of this that people depend on you to look and which has by far the MOST impact on the image in general, and you COMPLETELY IGNORE it. So i am just going to ASK since you DIDN"T MENTION IT AT ALL, what is the 3D rendering resolution of Shadow of the Colossus, is it TRUE 720P OR NOT???????? as seen in motorstorm apocalypse etc if it's lower and stretched to 720 it looks like crap. how is it even possible you did not answer this when you go into ICO tech specs so in depth. ridiculous.

  • bionic #26 9 months ago

    Bit like DVD vs Blu-ray

    You think DVD is great, and then you see Blu-ray,
    and want to burn all you DVD's ;D
    Edited by bionic at 10/09/11 @ 16:26

  • FenderMaster #27 9 months ago

    It's weird as I kinda miss the dodgy framerate of the PS2's SOTC, it gave the colossi kind of a stop motion effect and as well all know stop motion is great!

    Yeah, me too, it kind of reminded me of the animation in this:

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubeVUnGQOIk
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubeVUnGQOIk
    [/link]

    it added character, and really worked well with, or even complimented the art style and animation.

  • Obiwanshinobi #28 9 months ago

    Developer(s) stated they didn't want to change the feel of the game for 60fps so stuck to 30, though technically a solid 30fps does indeed change the entire feel of SOTC.

    Developers speaking bullshit about framerate and feel is all the rage now. Even the upcoming DMC game is supposed to feel like true DMC despite 30 fps. Some magic beans they have in store.

  • Kaminari #29 9 months ago

    Playing Colossus in 480p 16:9 on the PS2 was asking for trouble. The game runs much smoothier in 480i 4:3. A shame this (albeit fine) article doesn't mention it.

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #30 9 months ago

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

  • GitSomE_UK #31 9 months ago

    This is a solid buy for me two of the best games ever created.

  • Cappy #32 9 months ago

    The new Devil May Cry would probably be targeting 60 FPS like prior games in the series if it hadn't been given to Ninja Theory who are using Unreal Engine which rarely achieves stable frame rates at 30 FPS and only hits 60 FPS on less demanding titles.

  • Miths #33 9 months ago

    I've downloaded and watched the side-by-side 3D HD gameplay videos from YouTube.
    Ico looks impressive in 3D (although some of the outdoors sections have a very foggy, washed out looked to them, but that doesn't have anything to do with 3D, so I guess that's carried over from the PS2 version?), and does appear to run at a steady framerate.
    SotC shows pretty impressive depth when you're riding through some of the landscapes, but disappointingly seemed seemed somewhat flat to me when you're actually crawling on the colossi, and definitely with a wonky framerate.

  • KopparbergDave #34 9 months ago

    Will definitely be picking this up to experience these classice games which I more or less missed completely... but it is a shame it's only a remastering of the original assets and not an all out remake with improved art and animation. It's half great and half obviously 'last-gen', but definitely better than playing the originals in SD of course and a true remake with better assets is effectively making a whole new game from scratch in terms of cost I'd imagine! I hope there's more games like this coming back form the past. SEGA I hope you'e listening, we need Jet Set Radio and holly Jesus we deserve Shenmue, remastered, in HD, widescreen with great framerates. Don't worry, you'll more than get the cost back!

  • Darren #35 9 months ago

    "The recommendation is clear then: whether it's 720p, 1080p or stereoscopic 3D, Ico delivers the goods - full 1080p really is quite lovely, in particular. With Shadow of the Colossus, our suggestion is to manually reset your XMB Display Settings to 720p in order to avoid the upscaling artifacts and the noticeable performance drop."

    On reflection it would be useful if PS3 games had the option to set and save the resolution (480p, 720p or 1080p) on a per-game basis, like you can on the PC.

  • Lucodeath #36 9 months ago

    The art doesnt need to be improved, already top notch.
    Edited by Lucodeath at 11/09/11 @ 01:16

  • danjfor #37 9 months ago

    Seconding the love for the original SotC's slowdown, especially how it tended to kick in when the colossi stamped the ground near you and kicked up dust. One of those game bits where the technology breaking down has a positive empathetic putting-you-in-the-gameworld effect. There's a lot more to good games than technology running at peak efficiency. But with that said, it's not as if these remakes mean you can't still play the original, so it's nice to see them get such good treatment.

  • beep #38 9 months ago

    Is there a current generation game which has more impressive looking monsties than Shadow of the Colossus? I don't think so :)

  • Biker_Bob_1971 #39 9 months ago

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

  • neems #40 9 months ago

    @lunaluagua - it's not definitive by any means, but the following section -

    "So what's going on? Perhaps the clue is in the cut-down 960x1080 "full HD" mode. This represents a 12.5 per cent increase in fill-rate over the basic 720p output, and the result is that sometimes too much load is put on the GPU, resulting in the performance drops you see in the video below. In stereoscopic 3D mode, the fill-rate burden increases by 100 per cent, impacting frame-rate still further and producing a noticeably sub-optimal experience."

    - would suggest that the 3D mode is running 720p, albeit poorly.

  • Zerobob #41 9 months ago

    Curious how they have messed with the level of bloom and some of cut scene camera angles in SotC, and also not bothered to fix the pop-in issues. That disappoints me a little.

  • CamberGreber #42 9 months ago

    Shadow = no 1080p and 14fps in 3d jeezz.

    I think Id rather play this on PCSX2 in 1080p which looks amazeing.

  • weebl #43 9 months ago

    Its inevitable that with a remake of two most favoured games amongst gamers, that half of people would be pleased and half not. Personally I'm pleased that they didn't redo all art assets and keep it looking faithful to the originals, plus a 60fps refresh would have looked completely wrong. It is a shame that the LOD popup couldn't have been improved though...

  • BuckEntropy #44 9 months ago

    @nipsen - You're both terse and kind of all over the map with that post, so I'm not even certain about the message. But while DF has acknowledged their pixel counting isn't infallible, do you recall a case they've been "proven" wrong on, and I mean completely wrong. And I also don't see what the asset scaling has to do with it, surely they're attempting to count literal display pixels not texels?

    And if you take exception to the more subjective flavoring, I can understand, but it's always been a part of their style. But I'm again not sure what you're trying to say, because the emulation shots actually appear to verify that most of the assets are the same?

  • RicardoG #45 9 months ago

    I really happy this collection came out, it would be great if they remaked the entire game from ground up on an new game engine like Kojima Productions are doing in the Metal Gear HD Collection, all in all what really matters to me is the anti-alissing applied in the games, the frame rate never was a problem to me, it felt stylish if you know are I mean.

  • vizzini #46 9 months ago

    Buck: But while DF has acknowledged their pixel counting isn't infallible, do you recall a case they've been "proven" wrong on, and I mean completely wrong.

    *subtracting all games Richard has checked against PC/360 known capture resolutions(MS policy small print), and subtract all PS3 exclusives they've had prior developer interviews providing resolution information.

    Can you actually point to any Playstation Exclusive where Richard's pixel counting allegations has been confirmed to be correct?

    See, the the onus of proof lies with Richard to prove it isn't as the publisher/developer say, not the other way around, as you would have us believe.

    But naturally, something as simple as citations, methodologies and proof like wikipedia would need for any web page published to be considered fact, just has applied to these DF allegations even before Metal Gear 4; and on that topic, Konami's email support did confirm to a customer who explicitly asked about resolution in MG4, and got a response confirming the game was in 720p (as the box said).

    So either Konami support lied or misunderstood the question, or pixel counting was wrong on that occasion.

    But the thing that makes me convinced it is just more Fud about SotC being 960x1080 now, is that the game for a 16:9 render, you would have just 60(960/16)horizontal pixels per (1080/9) 120 vertical pixels.

    Meaning you've dedicated twice the pixel fidelity to capture polygon curvature in the vertical direction(that matters least) to the horizontal direction(that matters most). So even though Ueda would need all the extra sampling fidelity in the horizontal screen direction to render the huge long bridge just to minimise aliasing(even if anisotropic upscaled), he chosen the other option according to Richard and Digital Foundry.

    And reversed this fidelity use from the original game on PS2 32(512/16) horizontal vs (224/9)24.9 vertical; resulting in a swing of relative fidelity in the horizontal direction of 1.3times (on ps2) to 0.5(on ps3) which would make the image look odd?, or result in many new undesirable visual artefacts?

    The new image doesn't look odd does it? and the aliasing artefacts have mostly gone?

  • Caimbeul #47 9 months ago

    to me the washed out lighting and bloom lighting on the PS2 looks better in some places. Like when he walks into the corridoor on the horse...

  • Badassbab #48 9 months ago

    "Konami's email support did confirm to a customer who explicitly asked about resolution in MG4, and got a response confirming the game was in 720p (as the box said). "

    Meaningless statement. What the box says is what the game will scale up to based on resolution settings in XMB not necessarily the native resolution. Virtually all 360 games says 1080p on the back of the box. Also you should take your fanboy rant to Beyond 3D see what the members there have to say. They currently have MGS4 down as = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)

  • vizzini #49 9 months ago

    Badassbab: Beyond 3D see what the members there have to say. They currently have MGS4 down as = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal)

    Same rules apply to you, to them, Digital foundry and the rest of us.

    Prove it, and for SotC while you are at.

    In fact, get them to start a Wikipedia page on their methodology so it can undergo critical peer review like every other topic on Wikipedia does.

    Fud doesn't survive on Wikipedia, so until the methodology goes through that acid test, we can safely assume it is what it appears to be, BS Fud.

    I already demonstrated credible reasons why the transition from native 512x224 resolution on the PS2, to Richard's guess of 960x1080 makes very little graphical sense with the information available.

    Especially when the contortion of horizontal/vertical resolution ratio would most likely damage the image; and that is with, or without, the damage being further exacerbated by the remaster's new wider field of vision.

    edit:typos
    Edited by vizzini at 12/09/11 @ 10:49

  • edulinares #50 9 months ago

    Thanks for another great article DF, but I got one question. Is the 3D resolution scalable, as it is on 2d modes? I mean, can I get a smoother frame-rate on SotC by setting XMB to 720p and running the game in 3D?
    Also, it didn't become clear to me what is the actual resolution in 3D rendering, is it 980x1080p3D? Could this be improved, say, in a patch to 720p3D?
    Please update the article with these infos, I believe many 3DTV owners were eager to play SotC in smooth 3D, and it's disapponinting to see so little effort put into it, especially when this collection took so long to be release. I say we make a pressure on Sony and Blueprint' forums and emails, asking for better 3D support on SotC, we deserve it :-)

  • darc #51 9 months ago

    $40 for these two games is really quite reasonable. I already own the PS2 versions, but my PS2 is in a closet somewhere. This purchase would be easier to justify if we had some assurance that the PS4 would be backwards compatible for PS3 titles. As much as I'd like to have these classics on hand, I don't want to be buying the re-re-release 2 years from now.

  • solidSnake04 #52 8 months ago

    amazing.. we keep paying and playing below potential until the next generation

  • neojam #53 8 months ago

    Hmmm i don't know...
    IMHO while the HD versions look sharper, the original games provide much better cinematic experience.

    SotC for example has better bloom and DOF effects on PS2, also the low framerate on PS2 during the bossfights made the game feel more epic/immense.
    "By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated."