Tech Comparison: Red Faction Guerrilla PC

By Richard Leadbetter Published 11 September, 2009

Mission to Mars.

Page 1 of 2

I've been waiting for this one for quite some time. THQ's Red Faction: Guerrilla is one of my highlights of the gaming year, a superb case of technological innovation marrying beautifully with a strong concept to make a hugely entertaining, immensely fun game quite unlike anything else. My appreciation for the game grew further after I talked with the team for the RFG tech feature, and I was extremely curious to see how the PC version would pan out.

My only criticism with the original game was that the performance level was somewhat held back by the hardware available - the PS3 and Xbox 360. The game possesses an immensely variable frame-rate, operating between anything from 20FPS to 40FPS, with general performance somewhere at the mid-point. However, more than that, image quality in the game was compromised by the lack of v-sync, which resulted in over 40 per cent of the 60Hz output of the consoles consisting of torn frames.

The PC format should, in theory, allow you to play the same games without so many of the technical constraints, and we've reached the stage now where even the entry-level dual-core CPUs and enthusiast graphics cards offer performance way in advance of the consoles. I was itching to see how Red Faction: Guerrilla would play with its technical limitations removed. Those graphics and that destruction model with enhanced frame-rate, resolution and no tearing would be something utterly brilliant.

In terms of the package, THQ looks to have done PC owners proud. Red Faction: Guerrilla has everything the console versions have, a couple of very minor but nonetheless welcome graphical additions and, laudably, we're told that all three of the console versions' premium DLC packs come on the disc at launch. PC owners are used to putting up with delayed launches of console conversions, but at least they're getting the full package when they buy the game. Good stuff - Capcom (among others) please take note.

In terms of the overall look of the game compared to the console versions, here's a 720p and 1080p shot comparison between the PC and Xbox 360 builds. However, all three SKUs support 1080p in some fashion or other, so check out the more comprehensive 720p and 1080p comparison galleries.

'Tech Comparison: Red Faction Guerrilla PC' Screenshot pc-720p
'Tech Comparison: Red Faction Guerrilla PC' Screenshot 360-720p
'Tech Comparison: Red Faction Guerrilla PC' Screenshot pc-1080p
'Tech Comparison: Red Faction Guerrilla PC' Screenshot 360-1080p

Xbox 360 vs. PC at 720p and 1080p. The PC version is set to 2x AA, with DirectX 10 goodies engaged in addition to the basic high-quality mode.

The hardware I was using is a standard Core i7 920 CPU clocked at 2.66GHz, 3GB of DDR3 RAM, running the 64-bit rendition of Windows 7. For the record, we were told by THQ that our review code was actually submission code, so it may well be that performance will increase in the final retail build, or via a patch. In particular I'm hoping for stronger SLI/dual GPU performance in the future.

First up, it seems that Red Faction: Guerrilla exploits multi-core CPUs. However, based on performance-monitoring of the four CPUs inside the Core i7 processor, the game appears to be optimised for dual-core chips. What was quite impressive was that thanks to Windows' ability to shift load to any given core, I found that the game was playable at 1080p high settings (losing frames only when the big bangs kicked off) using just a single CPU combined with the GTX 275 graphics card. Give it two cores though and performance is much more solid in general gameplay. With a decent 2.6GHz dual-core CPU coming in at less than £60 these days, RFG should scale nicely across a number of AMD and Intel CPUs.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (29) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Darren #1 2 years ago

    Thank you, thank you, Richard, for letting us PC owners know how Red Raction Guerilla runs ahead of its release next week. I was starting to worry this would be another Saints Row 2 disaster of epic proportions, what with the lack of previews and any kind of demo. It's never a good sign usually (e.g. Bionic Commando, FUEL, Transformers, etc., all of which have some kind of issue on the PC ranging from broken or non-functional AA to borked up gamma settings!).

    But why on earth do developers leave out V-Sync settings in PC games? Sure it isn't difficult to force it via D3DOverrider (along with triple buffering) or the graphics drivers' control panel but we really shouldn't have to. Modern PC are more than capable of running games with V-Sync enabled and their users are intelligent enough to decide whether they want it on or off. It should always be an in-game option even if it is left off by default (for those ignorant few who don't know what V-Sync is).

    I have a Core i7 and single GTX 280 graphics card so it sounds like I should not have any problems running it at 1920x1200. Good news... it means I don't have to cancel my pre-order. Shame the game has been so damn long coming though...

  • Darren #2 2 years ago

    Incidentally, I can't work out from those screenshots whether it's the PC version that looks washed out colour wise or whether the 360 version has crushed blacks (it looks so damn dark in comparison, which masks shadow detail).

  • Darren #3 2 years ago

    "Screen tear was the main issue with the console builds, and you can't get away from it here either."

    That's not exactly true, is it, since you go on to explain how you got rid of screen tear by enabling v-sync? ;)

  • Widge #4 2 years ago

    Ooh, just from the twitter feed:

    "Poking around the Far Cry 2 PC version, engine settings for the game on PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 can be read. Interesting stuff - cheers Nebula!"

    I'm assuming this means you can go into the settings and set it to "360" or "PS3" settings automatically? My laptop can't max current games but it'd be nice to know that I can automatically set it to a console equivalent easily. If you're about Rich, can you confirm? /does not Twitter and its blocked here anyway

  • ybfelix #5 2 years ago

    Oh well.. judging from this screenshots I didn't miss out too much playing console version. The sun ray is a nice touch though. XBOX's contrast is indeed too much, I needed to adjust my TV

  • Nephirion #6 2 years ago

    The PC format should, in theory, allow you to play the same games without so many of the technical constraints, and we've reached the stage now where even the entry-level dual-core CPUs and enthusiast graphics cards offer performance way in advance of the consoles.

    I hope the wait will be worth it? I don't see much evidence of the need for extended development from the screen shots

  • Uncle_Fishboy #7 2 years ago

    Eurogamer really has become totally fucking boring

  • dingo75 #8 2 years ago

    Glad I pre-ordered it a couple a days ago from play.com.
    Pretty cheap. Can't wait! :)

    Thanks for confirmation it will be a decent port!

  • andromeda #9 2 years ago

    is that last PC screenie supposed to look impressive?
    Theres a "sunshaft" which seems to have been given too much attention and dome very bland looking, poorly lit scenery.

  • Genji #10 2 years ago

    Tbh, those screenies look pretty bland on both platforms. I saw it playing on PS3 just this afternoon, too, and wasn't that impressed.

    As always, art direction trumps graphical grunt. This is a tech article, of course, so I'm not expecting discussion of that, but still. At any rate, the difference doesn't seem too marked to a non tech person such as myself.

    I might pick this up, but only when it drops in price. Got too much other stuff on my plate right now. :)
    Edited by 2 at 11/09/09 @ 10:21

  • Alkeno #11 2 years ago

    Are we sure that the contrast was right for both machines? Screenshots look appalling on both systems, I can't make my mind whether I prefer the hiper-contrast 360 version or the washed out PC version...

    Art direction isn't helping either, as Genji said :-(

  • Genji #12 2 years ago

    "Eurogamer really has become totally fucking boring"

    I marked you down for that, but this still needs to be said:

    You're an idiot.

    Yes, much of this article looks like a lot of gobbledygook to me. It might as well be written in a foreign language.

    There are people that are very interested in this kind of stuff, however. Budding developers, designers, programmers, enthusiasts, whatever. I am happy to have their interests catered for by EG and this new Digital Foundry feature. Although I do not find it particularly useful, I can see how some would.

    And if I don't want to read it, then... surprise!... I don't have to! There are plenty of well-written reviews and features that do pique my interest.

  • cianchristopher #13 2 years ago

    While its nice to get the DLC included, the fact is that PC owners were never going to pay for it seperately anyway. So that point can be considered essentially moot.

    What can't be considered moot, though, is the fact that the game is coming out on PC later thatn it should, and reeks of the usual console-to-PC-port problems. I'm gettting sick of this shit! How hard would it be for them to include a V-sync option, huh?

    I run Vista 64-bit and my CCC panel allows for V-sync over-riding, but, while it works most of the time - it doesn't work for some games (Gears of War Windows, for instance)....

    PC games should simply not bother picking up these half-assed console-to-pc-ports any longer, cos they are just substandard products (especially when compared to PC-inclusive titles like Call of Duty 4 and The Orange Box)....

    It seems like Crysis was the last technological-envelope-pushing PC game we'll ever get.

    The developers who best manage to straddle the line between PC and consoles (i.e. treating them *both* with respect and care and attention) is a small number these days. I can think of Infinity Ward, Valve (only 360 though), Bethesda, 2K Boston/Australia, Visceral Games, Ubisoft Montreal, and a handful of others. (Hell, at least those guys manage to even *release* their games on PC at the same time as their console counterparts, so others have no excuse)!

  • dingo75 #14 2 years ago

    Why shouldn't we pick up those ports?
    They are cheaper than the console versions and pretty decent most of the times.
    Alternative would be to buy a console and play the multiplatform games on them.
    However I prefer sitting in front of my computer on a desk instead of lying on the couch and staring at my tv screen.

  • cianchristopher #15 2 years ago

    Well, I suppose PC owners can pick 'em up for the reason you rightly state. By all means, if you want the game on PC you should get it!

    I'm just disappointed that this seems to be compromised compared to other PC-exclusive games and PC-and-console games.

    I don't think "PC gaming is dying" - not at all!!! I just think that, given how customisable PCs are (that's kinda the point of PCs, given that they're *personal*) all options should be on the table. And, yes, the game should look significantly better than it does on console cos we're a good few years into the console lifecycle now and PC technology has leaped ahead....

    As Donnie said, PC gaming isn't really worth the hassle if you're just gonna end up with the same game as you get on consoles. It should be as good as your PC can make it!!!

  • Darren #16 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher - "I run Vista 64-bit and my CCC panel allows for V-sync over-riding, but, while it works most of the time - it doesn't work for some games (Gears of War Windows, for instance)...."

    For some weird reason, Gears of War Wndows also tears on my system too (GTX 280 graphics) even if V-Sync is enabled in the in-game options. I got round it by forcing it via the graphics driver's game profile but you could try using D3DOverrider that comes with RivaTuner (you can download it from Guru3D.com) as that also works and it allows you to force triple buffering too. I believe it works with NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards.

  • Deadpool996 #17 2 years ago

    Thanks for the article Richard; it might be worth a second look when they add SLI support. Sometimes Nvidia will release a beta driver just as a big game launches with the necessary optimisations.

    It's a shame when the PC version isn't fully realised especially when you have a game like Batman: AA that has some nice added features and performs appropriately to the hardware being used.

    I think it would be just nice to have something like we had with Resident Evil 5 where although there weren’t any big graphical upgrades the game ran significantly faster and at higher resolutions compared to the consoles.

    I’ve pre-ordered the game on steam so hopefully there will be some driver updates before release.

  • jimboton #18 2 years ago

    well that was interesting. Hope you can update the article with some better news once the final build is out.

    Also, it would be great to see some input lag analysis now that you have the means. Did you know that by enabling triple buffering you are necessarily adding 3-2 extra frames of delay to the mix?

    Edited by 1 at 11/09/09 @ 11:45

  • cianchristopher #19 2 years ago

    Thanks for the info Darren! How legit is RivaTuner? Will it bork my PC (I've just had to reinstall Windows thanks to downloading a few too many programs)....

    So, did you actually get Gears of War v-synced in the end? That'd be great.

    Amazing that other Unreal Engine 3 games on PC (Mass Effect, Unreal Tournament 3, BioShock) have no V-sync issues but the game that launched the engine is plagued with them...

    Off-topic, but is there such a thing as anti-aliasing on Unreal Engine 3 games on PC? I can't find it in the graphics options of any of the above-mentioned titles....

  • FogHeart #20 2 years ago

    Highly-specced machines don't have a significant advanatge over medium specced ones for this game? I can forgive that. I'd expect a game to be optimised for the kind of hardware it's most likely to land on, and from what this article shows, they've done a good job in that respect.

  • Darren #21 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher - RivaTuner is freeware and available for anyone to download from here:

    [link url=http://downloads.guru3d.com/RivaTuner-v2.24c-downl oad-163.html
    ]http://do wnloads.guru3d.com/RivaTuner-v2...[/link]

    I've been using it for years and have never had any issues with it. I only really use it to force triple buffering in DX9/10 games but it been useful for forcing v-sync in the odd game.

    And, yes, I've been playing Gears of War Windows with no screen tearing... strange that the in-game option doesn't work though... I always thought it was a quirk with my setup... :?

  • Baranga #22 2 years ago

    Well, at least it's a better port than Saints Row 2.
    I won't pass on this game just because I can't get 60fps at 1280 x 1024, it looks to be a lot of fun.

  • Darren #23 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher - Sure, Red Faction Guerilla is a multiformat game so it's going to share 95% of the same assets as the console versions such as textures and audio. The PC version does have additional lighting effects (SSAO) though plus allows you to play at much higher *native* resolutions than the consoles (1080p is merely upscaled on the console, on the PC it isn't giving a sharper, cleaner image), you can force V-Sync on to remove tearing and set as much anti-aliasing as your graphics card can handle. You can also force anisotropic filtering to minimise texture blurring in the disance. Basically you have *choices* that don't exist in the console versions: do you want 4X AA, 16X AF and 30 fps or 2X AA, 4X AF and 45 fps, etc., etc.?

    These are really the only improvements you can genuinely expect from a multiformat game anyway short of adding some fancy DX10 and PhysX effects as they are made with lesser formats in mind so have to cater to the lowest common denominator. In an ideal world games would be made for the high-end PCs first then ported down to the consoles and optimised/tweaked but, sadly, the video games market is more focused on the consoles these days as there is more money to be made there.
    I've no doubt that RFG will be heavily pirated as soon as it is released and that would probably have happened even if the game had been released with the console versions month ago.

  • Darren #24 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher - "Off-topic, but is there such a thing as anti-aliasing on Unreal Engine 3 games on PC? I can't find it in the graphics options of any of the above-mentioned titles...."

    Yes, AA does work with most UE3 game that have no in-game option and is easy to force on NVIDIA graphics card as the game profiles contain the necessary AA setting so all you have to do is force AA via the override option from the control panel. I've been using AA with BioShock (DX9 and D10), X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Mass Effect, UT3 and Wheelman (of the games I can remember). I don't know whether AA works with XP or not but it does with Vista 64-bit.

    With ATI cards I believe you can force AA in UE3 games by renaming the game executable to UT3 and setting the Catalyst A.I. to High. I'm not 100% sure but I'm sure you'll be able to Google the required info.

  • Salaminizer #25 2 years ago

    a reminder: NO DEDICATED SERVERS.

    And although a rather minor issue, there's not even an "official" dev. console (I put "official" because there might be some way to activate via settings or something else), which kinda shows that Volition thinks about it (and I don't blame ReactorZero because I doubt they choose their own directions)

  • soviet_ #26 2 years ago

    @donnie080208, as long as there are developers like Valve and Blizzard out there making games, the PC will always be superior to the console for the dedicated gamer. Consoles are only going to get more PC like, not the other way around. Look at ID and RageTek 5, sure they are making it available on PS3 and 360 but the most advanced version (and in my opinion, the best) is going to be the PC.

    I have both consoles and I love playing the exclusives, sitting on the sofa and playing games on the TV is great but as long as there are people out there who want to continue to push the boundries for graphics, physics and AI, the platform they will be doing it on is the PC and the console will always be a couple of hardware cycles behind and falling (if the current format of consoles stays the same).

  • BlackBabyJesus #27 2 years ago

    All the screenshots from Xbox games that I've seen in eurogamer's comparisons have way too much contrast. I much prefer the slightly washed out PC look. You can always up the contrast and saturation manually on a PC if that's what you want.

  • Deadeye* #28 2 years ago

    Whell thats a bumer... I realy hoped that RF:G can achieve more than console verson. But i think it's most to do whit piracy...

  • Huffman_D #29 2 years ago

    the xbox has a very weak shadow processing thing, so to compensate, all the shadows on the 360 look VERY dark compared to other platforms. this can give games a contrast that seems almost stylistic but it isnt.

    which is actually why i like a lot of games on the three sixty because im boners for contrast. but, objectively speaking, the pc version is much more natural looking