GTAIV time-lapse video: 15 days in Liberty City
November 4th, 2009
We've been planning to put this together for ages, but the recent release of Grand Theft Auto IV: Episodes from Liberty City (reviewed today) proved to be as good an excuse as any to finally put the effort in - not just because the additional content is so cool, but also to pay tribute to what remains the finest, most expertly realised open-world environment ever to hit consoles.
Just sitting back and watching the world go by in GTAIV is an experience in itself, and the range of behaviours attributed to the gameworld's pedestrians is absolutely phenomenal. They drink coffee on the way to work, they sit and read on the benches, they warm up before going jogging, they put their brollies or run for cover when the rain comes, they get immensely annoyed if a car runs into them.
Some of them smoke, some of them don't... They'll even pick fights with one another on the odd occasion. Combine this with the realistic movement of each and every vehicle, along with the uncanny lighting system and the superb realisation of multiple weather types and you can't help but appreciate the sheer technical accomplishment.
The player's focus is of course on the game itself, and the cityscape that Rockstar North has created is taken somewhat for granted bearing in mind just how far ahead of the competition this technology is. Creating and coding the make-up of Liberty City must have been a mammoth undertaking, but in the midst of the involving gameplay it's just background detail as Niko's story unfolds - or Johnny Klebitz's, or Luis Lopez'.
There are complaints that the game feels laggy and that the frame-rate is somewhat variable and often disappointing, and it's difficult to argue with that, especially when other open-world games sustain their frame-rates more convincingly. However, it's important to remember that in addition to everything we've just described, Liberty City is a creation unlike any other.
Games like Prototype or Crackdown can stream and decompress data relatively easily in comparison thanks to the multitude of repeated graphical assets, shared textures and more basic geometry. Not only that, but the developers can shape the environment as they please to match the limits of their technology. GTAIV on the other hand is attempting a full-on recreation of New York City, with all the challenges that represents.
Speaking of challenges, putting this video presentation together wasn't exactly a walk in the park. First of all, we needed a technique to sustain a first-person viewpoint without the game shifting into spectator mode. This was solved by using the camera-phone you get later on in the story. Next up, the capturing. GTAIV's day-night cycle lasts for about 50 minutes of real time and we captured around 45 different clips at one frame-per-second over the course of 10 days, not all of which made the cut.
While our previous time-lapse videos have simply faded between day-night cycles, for this one we went a little further. Thanks to the on-screen timer on Niko's mobile, we were able to edit together 15 days of game time - complete and unabridged - encompassing 35 different locations from Liberty City.
It's our tribute to a superb technical achievement that no other open-world game has yet to match, and we can but wonder what the team at Rockstar has planned for the inevitable next GTA offering. With the technology in the bag and still essentially unrivalled, will the developers shift the focus to content creation? Or can we expect an even more advanced version of this astonishing engine?
God of War III demo performance analysis
November 1st, 2009
At around 2.6GB in size, the God of War III E3 demo is one of the meatiest sampler downloads we've yet experienced, but the lengthy wait is worth it bearing in mind the length and breadth of the content on offer. Indeed, there's so much to show that we've cut the video analysis into two parts with only minor edits.
The first effectively covers what was shown in the Sony press conference at E3, the second shows what comes afterwards, and it's here that the demo really comes into its own - becoming that much more of a technical showcase. If you've already eagerly consumed the E3 press materials, skipping ahead to the second vid is probably worthwile.
So, part one then. Our initial technical analysis of the E3 demo remains relevant (it is the same code after all), but what is noteworthy is just how clean God of War III is. It's not really so self-evident on compressed internet video assets.
The texture work is of an outstanding quality throughout, special effects are used in a subtle and reserved manner, lighting is exemplary. The code appears to be using 2x multisamping anti-aliasing, but similar to Killzone 2, the choice of colour palette helps in adding to the edge-smoothing effect.
Into part two and the Sony Santa Monica studio's range of effects comes to the fore a touch more prominently. The per-pixel lighting in combination with the high-quality texture work produces some uncanny effects (for example, on the marble). The depth-of-field effect isn't "in your face", it just works and looks superb. The texture filtering employed is of an excellent quality. The only downers are a few low-poly edges and the reduced alpha buffers, but the impact on overall image quality isn't really a problem at all.
So, the frame-rate. Yes, it's E3 code. Yes, there's obviously a better-than-usual chance that the final code will improve over what we see in the demo. However, the performance level in the sampler is intriguing. This rendition of God of War III is v-synced (so no tearing), and based on our playthrough across the two videos, we have an average of 36.81FPS, a low of 24FPS and a high of 56FPS.
Average frame rates aren't usually that much of a useful stat, but here it's a pretty decent indication of overall performance throughout - which is curious. Locking the game at 30FPS would have produced a more visually consistent look, as well as a more predictable, "reliable" feel from the controls - plus less judder on-screen in panning shots and the like.
Overall though, small quibbles aside, this demo is great stuff, and the timing of its release just weeks before the US demo is released as part of the God of War Collection is curious. Will this self-same E3 demo be the same sampler included as a PSN redeem code within the package? Has Europe actually had the "exclusive" here?
Left 4 Dead 2 demo performance analysis
October 29th, 2009
Alongside the new Assassin's Creed and Modern Warfare sequels, Valve's Left 4 Dead 2 must surely rank as one of the most highly anticipated games of the year for Xbox 360 users. Currently only available as a bonus to US customers who pre-ordered the game, we've managed to procure the Xbox 360 demo and subjected it to the usual battery of performance tests. This is the first time the Digital Foundry channel has seen the game running, and overall impressions are very positive indeed.
The demo itself is a decently-sized sampling of what is to come. Weighing in at a hefty 1.6GB, the download offers up two levels of The Parish to work through along with online and single-player gameplay. Similar to the first game, the CPU takes control of your three companions in the absence of any human companions. You get to sample a range of firearms, incendiaries like Molotov cocktails and pipebombs, plus the much-vaunted melee weapons. Realistically there's between 20 to 30 minutes play-time, which we've edited down a bit for this six minutes of frame-rate analysis.
From a technical perspective, frame-rate is essentially fairly solid (30FPS with a few caveats), and, similar to previous games running on the Source engine, we're looking at a v-synced 720p with no anti-aliasing. To smooth off edges a touch, a subtle blur filter has been added. These post-processing effects rarely look that great but here it works in concert with a well-implemented camera motion blur and isn't so distracting. On the plus side, texture filtering is a decent combination of trilinear with a good level of anisotropic filtering.
Where performance is impacted, it looks as though it's down to fill-rate. The biggest dips in the frame-rate graph are where many transparency effects are in play. While the Source engine's setup is seemingly designed for maximum fill-rate, the use of smoke and fog needs to be deployed carefully - geometry that clips through the transparency essentially ruins the effect of it, so the engine continually runs checks to make sure it never happens.
It also looks as though some alpha effects are generated at lower resolutions before being scaled up, most noticeable on the fulsome flame effects seen in the demo (and captured in the video thumbnail above). It's a common technique most often deployed in PS3 titles where GPU bandwidth is at a premium, but it's a good trick that can be used on any platform and it's rare that the user picks up on it.
Overall then, few surprises here: the Source engine on 360 looks to be more than up to the task of powering the sequel. If you fancy a bit of additional information on how Valve transitioned from PC to cross-format development, this GDC 2008 presentation is absolutely fascinating, and worth a look not just for the valuable info, but also for its strategic use of oddly appropriate comedy photography.
DF: Blu-ray makes no sense for Xbox 360
October 22nd, 2009
News this morning suggests Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has done it again, pre-empting official announcements by confirming to Gizmodo that the company is planning a Blu-ray expansion drive for the Xbox 360.
When asked if forthcoming 360s will get an internal Blu-ray drive, he replied: "Well I don't know if we need to put Blu-ray in there - you'll be able to get Blu-ray drives, can get Blu-ray drives as accessories."
It looks self-explanatory out of context, but then context is king, and if you watch the original clip it's easy to reach the conclusion that he was talking about buying yourself a separate player for the lounge if you fancy a Blu-ray player, and simply used the magic word "accessories" by accident. Especially as he then talks about video-on-demand being the future in the next sentence.
That said, there's no technical reason it couldn't happen. Assuming an external drive similar to the ill-fated HD-DVD add-on, the technical challenges of bringing Blu-ray to the Xbox 360 are significant, but most of the legwork has been done already. The HD-DVD codebase within the 360's dashboard features support for the same MPEG2, h264 and VC-1 codecs found in the Blu-ray spec.
The only question mark concerns the throughput levels the code is capable of: HD-DVD handled 30Mbps max, while Blu-ray ups the ante to 50Mbps. At the time of the HD-DVD add-on's launch, Microsoft talked about how a combination of both CPU and GPU power was required to handle the decoding. Assuming there's no overhead in the code, it could require significant re-engineering to get it up to BD specs.
Even then, Microsoft would be in the unenviable position of having to charge a premium for a BD playback solution fundamentally inferior to PlayStation 3 performance, most notably due to the limited surround sound options in the lower-spec HDMI 1.2 controller found in the Xbox 360.
Over and above that, Microsoft's strategy thus far has been to say that gamers don't need Blu-ray, and any kind of expansion device would suddenly be suggesting the opposite. Far from offering more value to the Xbox 360, it would immediately make the keenly priced all-in-one PS3 Slim far more of an attractive proposition. Validating Sony's decisions isn't Microsoft's style.
As for games arriving on Blu-ray for Xbox 360: forget it. Some figures bandied about at the time put the penetration of the HD-DVD add-on at a mere three per cent. A BD device would probably be more popular, but the take-up would still be far too low to risk muddying the waters with games available on multiple disc-based SKUs.
In a sense, the Xbox 360's reliance on DVD has defined the storage threshold for this generation. The vast majority of its first-party titles use just the one disc. Third-party cross-platform titles are, with the odd exception, invariably targeted towards the 6.8GB storage limit imposed by the Xbox 360 DVD, to the point where even the PS3 versions are much the same size. The success of the Microsoft console has defined the size of almost all cross-platform games this generation, effectively making the 25GB and 50GB storage limits of Blu-ray superfluous.
In terms of HD movies, Microsoft probably reckons its download-only strategy stands just as much of a chance of success as Blu-ray over the longer term as broadband streaming speeds increase. Its service is also inherently more suitable for the Xbox platform: it's immediate, it's available to all Xbox 360 owners out of the box, it adds value to Xbox Live, and, crucially, Microsoft will make more money from it. Releasing a BD peripheral gives the firm no recurring revenue stream and effectively share-steals from its own services.
Moving into the next generation, all bets are off. The next Xbox will require a higher level of storage and by the time that comes about, a Blu-ray drive will be the cheapest way to deliver that. In the here and now, any kind of move into the BD market would be too little, too late. And besides, Xbox 360 seems to be doing well enough without it.
Uncharted 2: Mastering the Cell
October 19th, 2009
Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is the game that just keeps on giving. In addition to the gameplay, there's a wealth of bonus material on the disc that is well worth a look. Amongst the various goodies are eight behind-the-scenes mini-documentaries concentrating on the developers and their work. The one we enjoyed the most is entitled "Mastering the Cell", an intriguing glimpse into the ways and means in which Naughty Dog has created what must surely be this generation's defining technical achievement.
The documentary is interesting in a number of regards, not least in that it appears that one of the core philosophies behind Naughty Dog's rendering tech is to offload as many tasks as possible from the GPU and stack them up on the SPU satellite processors of the Cell chip. In the case of Uncharted 2, post-processing techniques such as the game's phenomenal depth-of-field effect (pretty much the best seen on console to date) are hived off to the SPUs. It's an intriguing way of using resources. Presumably the GPU would be able to carry out the same task a lot faster, but if the RSX is otherwise engaged in a computationally more expensive task, it just makes more sense to use the SPUs to do the same job.
It's a little frustrating to get such a short and often obscured glimpse of the performance tools in action, but at at around 23 seconds into the video, you should be able to discern on-screen that five SPUs are being maxed out: an impressive feat of parallelisation.
Other bite-sized snippets of information we learn from this video: firstly, the game appears to be achieving throughputs of up to 1.2 million triangles per frame, effectively 40 million per second. Secondly, some of the debug info shown on-screen is literally quite illuminating - the cascaded shadowmap and translucency lighting elements indicate that transparent alpha effects, such as smoke and atmospheric haze, can be affected by the current lighting scheme.
Also worthy of comment as something that's not immediately apparent to the eye, but technically very clever, is the concept of procedural animation, or blended motion. Drake's movement flows more smoothly due to the fact that the game takes its predefined animations and uses the SPUs to figure out intermediate motion to easily move from one to the other without having to wait for a particular animation to complete - this means that the response from Drake to controller commands is that much faster.
The net result is that Drake moves more realistically, and the animators don't need to predetermine every single move possible. What we'd really like to see is this kind of technology moved on to the next level in order to bring some level of innovation to the moribund 3D fighting genre. [Tsk, you and your moribund 3D fighting genre. - Ed]
Returning to the here and now, taking a look at this video, particularly after playing through the Uncharted 2 single-player mode, really puts into perspective its landmark technical achievements.
New CryEngine vid shows next-gen vision
October 15th, 2009
CryTek has completed development of its new CryEngine 3 middleware and released a new trailer demonstrating its vision for the engine's next-generation capabilities, along with new footage highlighting performance on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.
From what we can see, the "Next Gen" elements of the trailer appear to be about the scalability of the new engine and are most probably derived from the technology running on a supremely powerful PC.
The forest scene, for example, is hugely oversampled, but the lighting quality is absolutely phenomenal. The later scenes retain the high quality and showcase high resolution shadow-mapping and absolutely no "pop-up" whatsoever.
After concentrating on console performance in its CryEngine 3 presentations, elements of this trailer come across almost like a love letter to CryTek's dedicated PC fanbase, who've been left to wonder exactly what visual goodies the new engine will bring to their hardware in the future.
The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 elements of the trailer are new material based on the assets seen in CryTek's previous GDC showcase. There are no direct shot-for-shot comparisons between the two consoles, but it is clear that there are differences between the two implementations, with the lighting model appearing to be different between the two consoles.
Overall performance seems to be close to the firm's initial GDC video, based on shots taken from the same areas. For example, during the Xbox 360 procedural destruction and physics section, we see that the frame-rate hovers around 20FPS, just as it did in CryTek's previous materials. Both versions of the engine appear to be running at native 720p with no anti-aliasing.
One thing that does look different is the implementation of v-sync. In the GDC trailer it appeared that the PS3 version was triple-buffered with v-sync, while the Xbox 360 engine had some screen-tearing. In this new video, v-sync is clearly disengaged on the PS3 "Rich Interiors" clip. All of this is important as, by CryTek's admission, the engine is now complete. This is the tech that will be powering 2010's Crysis 2, coming to both PC and console.
There's much to be excited about with CryEngine 3, whether you're a developer or a gamer. Unreal Engine 3 technology has dominated the current generation of gaming, particularly in the first- and third-person shooting genres, and this is something new and compelling that introduces a wealth of new graphical possibilities.
For the game-makers, the so-called Live Create "what you see is what you play" editor, showcased in the trailer, should make the process of cross-platform development that much easier. Changes made engine-side are duplicated on both consoles, in real-time. Not only that, but the scalability elements of CryEngine 3 make it simpler for developers to write for the current generation today, while maintaining an easy path for supporting the forthcoming console platforms.
"With CryEngine 3 we are releasing the best development solution available today and tomorrow," says CryTek CEO/President Cevat Yerli. "With its scalable graphics and computation it is Next Gen ready and with new features like CryEngine 3 Live Create the best choice for game developers and companies developing serious games applications alike. It is the only game engine solution that enables real-time development."
Bayonetta: PS3/360 demo showdown
October 12th, 2009
It began with a seemingly innocuous notice in Japanese games magazine Famitsu, where special mention was made that the PS3 version of Platinum Games' forthcoming Bayonetta is not being handled by the original developer. Quite why Platinum isn't at the conn for the conversion to the Sony platform remains something of a mystery, but the recent Japanese demo release offers some potential reasons, and it too highlights prominently that Platinum is not responsible for the port. So, is this a simple case of giving credit where it's due, or is the developer effectively disavowing itself of the PS3 version of the game?
It has to be said that there is much in the PS3 rendition that Platinum would most likely wish to distance itself from. In terms of raw performance, both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games have their issues, but by virtually every criteria it is the PS3 version that comes off worse, as you can see from the media Digital Foundry has prepared. There's some Face-Off style comparison shots to gawp at, along with this 720p movie:
The game's engine-driven cut-scenes are intricate in detail and offer a close-up view of some of the more obvious differences between the two versions. Right from the off, it's clear that the PlayStation 3's lack of unified memory pools has been an issue for SEGA's conversion-smiths: texture quality is pared back significantly. More than that, frame-rates are considerably lower, and tearing is far more frequent. There is also some evidence of the normal-mapping having a quality edge on Xbox 360. Platinum appears to have deployed one the Xenos GPU's unique compression modes (DXN/3Dc+) for a higher-quality finish, whereas the more standard DXT texture compression can look a bit rough on SEGA's PS3 version, in particular with blocky artefacting on curved edges.
Making matters worse, the developers have enveloped the PS3 cut-scenes in an almighty blur, which magically lifts the moment the gameplay begins. It's almost as if SEGA were replacing engine-driven cut-scenes with pre-rendered video sequences - only the immensely variable frame-rate and lack of compression artefacts suggest otherwise. For its part, Xbox 360 appears to be employing more selective and sophisticated post-processing, which looks cleaner, but it's clear that there's some washing out of detail and crushed blacks.
Into the game and those basic image-quality differences do not seem quite so pronounced as in the cut-scenes, but it is clearly obvious that detailing has been pared back. Bayonetta appears to be adding an extra detail map on top of the existing textures and when the base art is of a lower resolution, the difference becomes self-evident. However, by far the most obvious differences are in terms of the frame-rate and the level of tearing. There is a night-and-day performance issue here. Let's kick off with Platinum's own work on the Xbox 360 build:
Frame-rates are high here, but tearing is an issue. What is interesting from a technical perspective is that there is screen-tearing that is impossible to programmatically identify. The technique for doing so involves comparisons with the frame before and the one after - finding identical video data to locate the tear. In a small sampling of cases, there is no identical video data, but the frame is still torn. What this most likely means is that Bayonetta sometimes renders frames faster than 1/60th of a second, for reasons unknown (WipEout HD appears to do the same on the odd occasion). It also means that to the human eye the game tears slightly more than this graph tells you.
There are no such troubles of that ilk in analysis of the PS3 version, which runs with a clear performance penalty:
With more torn frames (anything up to 70 per cent in challenging scenes) and fewer frames rendered, the overall sense is that Bayonetta PS3 is a workman-like, adequate rendition of what Xbox 360 owners are getting. It gets the job done, it's still plenty of fun, all the rich imagination in Platinum's concept is there, but it's definitely a less impressive rendition of what's looking to be a great game.
Over and above all of that, this demo raises as many questions as it answers. The two samplers have overlapping content, but also go their own way in a number of respects. Platinum's own 360 code offers up sections of two stages: The Falling Clock Tower and The Angel's Metropolis. PS3, meanwhile, completely avoids The Falling Clock Tower and extends the titanic bridge battle from the other stage. A bonus boss fight (seen at the end of the PS3 performance video) is added too: conceptually lovely as gravity is thrown completely out of the window, but less technically challenging than the omitted 360 content.
Regardless of the technical challenges, one thing is common to both versions of Bayonetta above all else. The game is crammed with a wealth of wonderful ideas, new graphical scenarios and some literally insane fighting action. Hopefully the game's Western audience will get a good look at it soon.
Tech Analysis: Forza 3 Demo
October 6th, 2009
Forza Motorsport 3 is due for release at the end of this month, and while we're reserving some time for a tech analysis on the full game, the recently released playable demo also offers up a number of decent performance metrics, some neat tech stuff, and a number of interesting decisions by the developers at Turn Ten.
A quick analysis of the in-game 60FPS mode throws up a couple of interesting graphical quirks. First up, you might notice a stippled "screen door" effect on all the surrounding vegetation: a similar effect is in play on SEGA Rally. This is known as "alpha to coverage" and it's a low bandwidth method of giving some kind of transparency. You can also see it in effect at the overpass near the end of the circuit.
The effect has almost certainly been included to help sustain 60FPS. Literally rendering fewer pixels helps contain overdraw, while the framebuffer format might also be important. On some of the formats supported by Xbox 360, transparent so-called alpha pixels take twice as long to render - not good when you're looking to maintain a smooth 60FPS.
Also interesting is the inclusion of what's known as a negative LOD (level of detail) bias. In the normal scheme of things, high resolution textures are reserved for areas of the game world close to the player, with lower resolution assets deployed further away. In the case of Forza 3, the road textures detail levels are much higher than they need to be for the available resolution, and this results in some superb definition at the expense of some shimmering as the detail is downscaled. Quite why Turn Ten has opted for this method over some kind of adaptive anisotropic filtering is a bit of a puzzle bearing in mind the relative paucity of the 360's texture cache – it may well simply be the case that the developer had the GPU time to spare.
HDR tone-mapping has also been included, although its usage is somewhat muted, presumably to stop over-the-top lighting effects affecting the gameplay.
Analysis of the game's replay mode suggests that Turn Ten has taken a leaf out of Polyphony Digital's book and has opted for increased detail and effects, sacrificing the 60FPS refresh rate in the process, on the track-side cameras at least.
At this stage of the game, superior motion blur effects are added, anti-aliasing is upped to a smoother 4x MSAA and interestingly the game runs with a soft v-lock at 30FPS. In this particular replay you don't see the effect much at all, but torn frames can crop in here, particularly on scene-changing moments. On the final game it'll be interesting to see how the engine copes on really challenging scenes. Also intriguing is that the alpha to coverage effect looks different in the replays. Combined with the mask generated by the 4x MSAA, it has the bonus of adding additional colour shades.
However, as some have pointed out, it is very curious to note that the car models employed in the replay mode are not of the highest quality (judged by the standards of the models elsewhere in the demo). The angles shown of the cars at the beginning of the actual race employ the highest LOD (level of detail) models, whereas the replay shows significantly less detailed meshes for the vehicles. In all honesty, this is a bit of a mystery, maybe even a bug that will be corrected in the final build.
Check out the detailing around the headlight. The replay model (right) appears to be using lower detail 3D models when compared against the intro cameras on the actual gameplay (left). Very curious and it could be a bug in the demo code.
Onto the issue of crash damage then, and it's interesting to see how Turn Ten has implemented its model. The car has been divided up into different sections, and each has a pre-determined, incremental level of damage, with a number of removable parts. In the course of general racing, the effect is fairly realistic, but it's still somewhat removed from the reality of a high-speed crash during a real race. There's no deformation along the lines of Burnout Paradise, for example, and even the dynamically generated "battle damage" in the Xbox 360 version of Burnout Revenge hasn't been replicated.
So, what's the big deal with crash damage any way? The bottom line is that it's a hugely important part of games that purport to be racing simulators. High speed racing is synonymous with danger, and risk must carry the threat of dire consequences... the days of ramming opponents with impunity and bouncing harmlessly off solid walls should be well behind us. The danger principle is one of the core philosophies behind Burnout, and it is interesting to note that the Criterion game's over-the-top, enhanced crashes are still vastly more realistic graphically than anything seen in Forza 3.
Interestingly though, Forza 3's model appears to have much in common with the latest work by Polyphony Digital on Gran Turismo 5. While our first impressions of the crash damage in GT5 at gamescom were not so positive, recent footage from the Tokyo Game Show suggests that Polyphony has made big, big improvements over the GC code. Removable body parts have been joined by localised damage. Whether it is dynamically generated, or pre-determined like Forza 3 is something we won't be able to confirm until there's better video or preferably some hands-on code to analyse.
It wouldn't surprise us at all if the damage is indeed pre-determined on both games. The Burnout titles have the luxury of using non-licensed cars; Criterion are the lords and masters of their creations and can do with them whatever they see fit. Both Forza and GT5 don't have that luxury, and it may well be the case that the developers need to get manufacturer sign-off on all the in-game representations of their vehicles. Detachable parts and pre-determined damage would be a convenient solution.
Forza Motorsport 3 is an impressive-looking game. Chances are that you've played the demo and you're as impressed with it as we are. Fingers crossed we can get a closer look at the final game pre-release...
Many thanks to Alex Goh for his input into this feature.
Tekken 6 PS3/360: The resolution game
October 4th, 2009
In Saturday's Digital Foundry "not so high definition" feature, we talked about the technical reasons why some console games don't actually appear to be running at the lowest HD standard: 720p. We revealed that Namco-Bandai's forthcoming Tekken 6 is one of those games, but also stated that the additional graphics processing introduced at the lower resolution, surprisingly, produced a higher overall image quality than the game's in-built HD mode which actually runs in excess of 720p.
Our analysis was exclusive to the Xbox 360 version of the game, and we promised an update on the PS3 rendition, so let's get going. To put it simply, there's good news and bad news here. Let's get the bad tidings out of the way first: while there is the option to switch between 1024x576 and 1365x768 modes on Xbox 360 (via tweaking the motion blur setting between on and off), the PS3 version is locked exclusively to the lower resolution. The good news is that even so, the PS3 version still manages to command a slightly higher image quality overall if you can do without the motion blur.
Let's get the pixel measurements out of the way first, courtesy of DF contributor and image quality specialist, MazingerDUDE.
The PS3 version (top) is locked to 1024x576 in both major display modes, but the omission of motion blur allows Namco to add in a 2xMSAA filter. Xbox 360's answer to AA is to supersample 1365x768 down to 720p and lower texture filtering.
Removing the motion blur filter frees up a lot of resources, and Namco has chosen to deploy these in two different ways on each console. Xbox 360 gets an enormous resolution boost to 1365x768, while the PS3 gets 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. In terms of overall image quality across the two modes and two consoles, the PS3 gets the nod in "blur off" mode thanks to decent enough upscaling based on an anti-aliased image, while in default mode with the motion blur active, the 360's enhanced texture filtering gives clear image quality advantages.
So why did Namco choose 1365x768 on 360? If the dash is set to 1360x768, you don't get close-to-native resolution as you might expect. Indeed, the image is scaled down to 720p internally, then scaled back up by the Xenos GPU. Namco's methodology here is to smooth off edges by rendering at a higher resolution then scaling down – the developers have done it before, not just in Soul Calibur IV, but also in Ridge Racer 6. It's an attempt at some form anti-aliasing without needing to tile video data out into main RAM. At 1365x768 with no AA, everything remains inside the 360's 10MB eDRAM, ensuring maximum performance.
Despite that, we can conclude that Tekken 6 at sub-HD resolutions gives a better-looking display at 576p. So, what's going on, particularly in the Xbox 360 game? How can the sub-HD mode give clearer, sharper detail when it's running at nearly half the resolution of the "motion blur off" mode? Time to call in an Xbox 360 development expert, someone used to pushing the hardware in obscure directions: Trials HD lead coder Sebastian Aaltonen.
High quality motion blur consumes a lot of performance. If you want something else than camera motion based blur, you have to save the motion vectors for each pixel, so the render target memory requirement rises as well. 88 (16-bit) would be enough for 2d screen space motion vectors, but for practical reasons you need an 8888 buffer.
1365x768 resolution 8888 color + 24S8 depth = 8386560 bytes, while 1024x576 resolution 8888 color + 24S8 depth + motion vectors = 7077888 bytes
Both configurations fit well inside the 10MB eDRAM. The 1024x576 is kind of a strange choice, as it's only around half the pixels of the 1365x768 and the cost of the blur filter comes nowhere close to the performance gained from the resolution decrease, and they are not eDRAM limited either. The resolution reduction itself is not something I consider strange, but a reduction this large means they have something else going on than just the motion blur. The better texture detail you are seeing could mean they have enabled anisotropic filtering for the lower resolution.
So, as we previously discussed, sub-HD is most often used to make up for performance deficits, but with Tekken 6, Namco-Bandai has opted to effectively include two different performance profiles.
In terms of how this works out during gameplay, the motion blur itself is quite a subtle effect, but pleasing nonetheless. Blur works best as a means of making motion look smoother than the frame rate suggests, but Tekken 6 is effectively locked at 60FPS any way, so the overall impression is not as impactful as the similar systems employed in Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2. However, the game includes at least two boss-style battles that pitch your fighter up against enormous, screen-filling opponents. And in those cases, the blur is much more evident. But in truth, as effects go, we can take it or leave it.
Overall, although there's really nothing in it in the heat of gameplay, we'd take the PS3's blur-off 576p 2xMSAA picture as the best IQ option available across both versions, the realisation of which suggests that the whole game would've benefited a lot more with the more traditional arrangement of native 720p and MSAA. Screen-filling bosses aside, there's nothing to suggest that this wouldn't have been possible. It's interesting to note that even when Tekken 6 is running at an HD resolution there is the sense that the game isn't quite all it could've been visually.
So, while we're here are there any other technical issues of note? There's a lot of Soul Calibur IV DNA in here, that's for sure, extending beyond the native resolution of the Xbox 360 game. Just like Namco's previous fighting game, the PS3 game gets an "install to HDD" optional feature (around 3.6GB in our preview code) and this is well worth using – load times can be laborious without it. It is worth pointing out that stuff like disc layout issues are optimised in the final period of development so in this case, the non-final nature of the code may be an issue, but there's nothing here that we didn't experience with Soul Calibur IV too. We'll be updating from final code in a future Face-Off, but with the game just weeks away from release, we're not expecting major changes.
One thing that is admirable is that there's also obvious evidence of Namco making use of the extra space on the Blu-ray disc. Tekken 6 data weighs in at around 20GB. Bearing in mind the size of the install, it's fair to assume that the rendered movies get the benefit here. That said, in the Tekken Force "Scenario Mode", cut-scenes are generally engine-driven using in-game assets, running at 60FPS on both consoles and are of essentially equal quality. Intro and ending movies tend to get the full-on CG treatment beloved of the Tekken series, and it's good to know that Namco-Bandai has taken a zero compromise approach to them, using the maximum bandwidth available that the freedom of a 25GB Blu-ray disc offers.
Moving away from DF issues and back into "preview mode", it will be interesting to see what the reception is to Tekken 6 from the media and gamers alike. Just like Soul Calibur IV, the core mechanics of the game harken back to previous games in the series, and the sense of re-invention we had in Street Fighter IV that made the genre feel somehow more fresh does appear lacking here. That said, it is interesting to note that the Tekken Force "Scenario Mode" is the first selectable option on the main menu - clearly Namco-Bandai wants us to give this a whirl first, and to try out the traditional one-on-one modes later.
Tekken 6 is slated for release at the end of the month.
Gran Turismo PSP shines in 60FPS video
September 14th, 2009
As momentum gathers for the PSPgo launch, Sony is preparing to unleash the first of its milestone releases for the re-invigoration of its handheld brand. Polyphony Digital has finally completed its much-delayed Gran Turismo for PSP, and review code was duly despatched to those deemed worthy enough last week.
Having had a taster of the portable experience at gamescom a few weeks back and coming away very impressed, I was very eager to check it out. Very little in the way of actual, tangible assets have emerged, with Sony's own E3 reveal shying away from showing the actual game, and this is rather odd, because even as a non-professional video editor, armed with around 30 minutes of raw video captures, I was able to put this trailer together, showing that - at its best - GT PSP can look quite spectacular.
What we have here is, in a sense, a bit of an experiment. Internet video is usually locked at 30FPS, but that's not Gran Turismo. This video is encoded at full fat 60 frames. Playback performance will vary owing to Adobe's rubbish Flash h264 decoder, so if the video lags for you, either click on the EGTV link for a traditional 30FPS encode, or else right-click and pipe down this specially prepared download for the full experience.
Polyphony Digital has taken a number of measures to accommodate Gran Turismo on the PSP, without sacrificing the core elements that make the game what it is. First up, the game uses the smallest frame buffer available to the unit, resulting in a stippled, dithered look to the visuals. Any one who has played Ridge Racer or its sequel on the handheld will know exactly what I'm talking about. This format means lower memory usage, lower bandwidth requirements and frees up a lot of fill-rate - all essential in getting GT running at 60FPS. Next up, the tracks have been pared down - most notably through the use of lower resolution textures. The impact on the image quality here very much varies from track to track: the detail-rich cities look a bit odd, whereas the rest of the courses look fine. Crucially however, the actual geography of the circuits is absolutely authentic to the original console versions.
GT PSP remains a technical marvel, for a number of reasons. First up, Polyphony Digital's love affair with the automobile is undiminished when you see the love and care that has gone into the vehicle modelling: it's frankly excellent. Secondly, the sheer amount of content in the game is staggering - all of the circuits from GT4 are in there, along with a car roster that appears to be just as comprehensive as its PS2 predecessor, if not more so, with the inclusion of the likes of Ferrari, Bugatti and Lamborghini. There's evidence of other, smaller tweaks that gamers will welcome: the ability to play your own MP3s from memory stick during gameplay, for example. The ability to install the game to memory stick if you're running from UMD is another. Tweaked colour profiles specific for the integrated display and the TV-out is another interesting bonus.
Perhaps the most crucial element brings us back to the point of this blog entry. It's unequivocably 60FPS (albeit with occasional tearing), and as such the handling model feels just as good as it did on PS2. It might be four years late, but in terms of the way it plays, this is indeed the portable Gran Turismo driving experience as was promised so long ago.
But over and above the technical achievement, is the game any good? How have the exhaustive gameplay modes been repurposed to accommodate the handheld market? Sony's review embargo lifts tomorrow at 5pm BST, and as I write, Tom is hard at work on the review. Be there.
