Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2010]

[nightshade]

Even in that case you can't ignore that the parity was much better in WaW.

 

[Billy Idol]

Guys, you have to understand that before the "IW fiasco" Treyarch didn't have access to anything from IW - no help, no assets, no MW2 engine, nothing.
W@W was developed from a MW1 code drop - meaning, "here's bunch of code and assets, go have fun".
So when asking "why is this a step back from MW2" you have to understand from Treyarch's perspective it never was MW2, it was W@W.
By the time MW2 came out (and later the "fiasco" when there was more access to MW2 source code), COD:BO was basically wrapping up.

Well, this explains a lot! Thanks for the insight...

 

[kagemaru]

Even in that case you can't ignore that the parity was much better in WaW.

Exactly, I'd like to know what is so radically different with this version of the engine, or design of the game, to create such a gap between each version even after the ps3 version is scaled back so much

 

[N_B]

WaW was better than BO for parity, but it was worse than the Modern Warfares (cut back environments). And Quantum of Solace, also by Treyarch and on the same engine suffered on PS3 as well.

 

[Boxercide]

Guys, you have to understand that before the "IW fiasco" Treyarch didn't have access to anything from IW - no help, no assets, no MW2 engine, nothing.
W@W was developed from a MW1 code drop - meaning, "here's bunch of code and assets, go have fun".
So when asking "why is this a step back from MW2" you have to understand from Treyarch's perspective it never was MW2, it was W@W.
By the time MW2 came out (and later the "fiasco" when there was more access to MW2 source code), COD:BO was basically wrapping up.

This doesn't make sense to me. MW2 came out a year ago, the fiasco went down back in the spring. It's not like it's a total different game engine. And they supposedly implemented some portions, such as streaming.

I had always heard in the lead up to BO that they get the latest engine and tech. For example, it's pretty clear that there's an evolution from CoD4>WaW>MW2. but then it seems there's a step back to BO.

 

[Barbarian]

Exactly, I'd like to know what is so radically different with this version of the engine, or design of the game, to create such a gap between each version even after the ps3 version is scaled back so much

It's a complex answer, but let's just say, the 360 was pushed hard, to a place where the PS3 couldn't go with the old tricks. Most of the time the battle was fitting the game in memory, and often to get performance you need to trade even more memory. I can go into details but with such a high profile title I'll quickly get in trouble.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

just read the BO face off:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff?page=1

man, this is a brutal one. must be one of the worst MP conversions this gen...and this for such a high profile game. Reminds me of GTA 4 desaster, but in this case, what is even worse: even the Xbox360 version does not look that good, IMO - engine is getting kind of old now...

what did they improve compared to MW2 that could cause such difficulties on ol PS3? If I understand it right, creation of assets, i.e. how to handle available resources, is an important task in game deving and game performance - maybe this is the main problem this time?

I decided to at least wait until it is cheap, before buying.

The biggest thing that I take away from this comparison is that if it were possible for me to be less interested in 3D steroscopic gaming, this would be another data point that would make me less interested.

Unless Cryteks extraction of stereoscopic 3D is really good, we'll always be faced with either max visuals in 2D at good speeds or either reduced visuals in stereoscopic or reduced framerate which could make the game almost unplayable.

So either you reduce overall game visual IQ in order for the game to run well in stereoscopic 3D or you make great visuals and then reduce it for 3D. I suspect devs without much funding will take the easy way out and just dumb down graphics to a level playable in 3D, and only well funded AAA devs will bother to make the best looking games in 2D and then scale things back for 3D.

I can't help but wonder if the PS3 version would have done better if they had gone for the same type of stereoscopic 3D as the X360 version. Although I suppose this would matter more if we knew the rendering res for each prior to upscaling for 3D.

Regards,
SB

 

[AlNom]

I can't help but wonder if the PS3 version would have done better if they had gone for the same type of stereoscopic 3D as the X360 version. Although I suppose this would matter more if we knew the rendering res for each prior to upscaling for 3D.

Well, they appear to run at the 2D resolution... They're both still rendering two frames, so I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Barbarian]

I had always heard in the lead up to BO that they get the latest engine and tech. For example, it's pretty clear that there's an evolution from CoD4>WaW>MW2. but then it seems there's a step back to BO.

I'm sorry, but your information is just not correct. IW did have access to W@W, but I don't think they cared.
These games are developed over 2 year periods. By the time the other studio is out you are half way through development, IW's engine is quite massive and convoluted. You can't just go grab bunch of code and expect it to work.
For good or bad, the engines have drifted apart, mostly because IW worked in full secrecy and isolation.

Obviously I might be biased in this case, but I personally don't think BO is a step back from MW2.
Everyone has their opinions, and especially when it comes to "looks" I don't know how we can possibly be objective about it. I think BO has fantastic lighting, character work and weapons.

 

[kagemaru]

It's a complex answer, but let's just say, the 360 was pushed hard, to a place where the PS3 couldn't go with the old tricks. Most of the time the battle was fitting the game in memory, and often to get performance you need to trade even more memory. I can go into details but with such a high profile title I'll quickly get in trouble.

I always thought fillrate was usually the bigger battle. I know there is a difference in memory, even today, but I imagine that would be an easier problem to tackle than the fillrate difference.

Also are you a dev at Activision or something? I don't want anyone to get in trouble, but I would think just talking about the possible reasons for the gap in performance shouldn't get people in trouble. Sorry, still kinda new here.

 

[Billy Idol]

I'm sorry, but your information is just not correct. IW did have access to W@W, but I don't think they cared.
These games are developed over 2 year periods. By the time the other studio is out you are half way through development, IW's engine is quite massive and convoluted. You can't just go grab bunch of code and expect it to work.
For good or bad, the engines have drifted apart, mostly because IW worked in full secrecy and isolation.

Obviously I might be biased in this case, but I personally don't think BO is a step back from MW2.
Everyone has their opinions, and especially when it comes to "looks" I don't know how we can possibly be objective about it. I think BO has fantastic lighting, character work and weapons.

thanks again for the insight.

are you allowed to talk about "some" specifics?
for instance on Xbox360: did you use the EDRAM in specific unusual ways to increase performance?

 

[Trejser]

thanks again for the insight.

are you allowed to talk about "some" specifics?
for instance on Xbox360: did you use the EDRAM in specific unusual ways to increase performance?

Or how PS3 SPU's are used in COD engine, that would be awesome info

 

[Boxercide]

thanks again for the insight.

are you allowed to talk about "some" specifics?
for instance on Xbox360: did you use the EDRAM in specific unusual ways to increase performance?

I just wanna know what the difference is between WaW & BO because there seems to be a gulf in performance and apparently there was no sharing of tech between teams.

I'm sorry if I insulted him, but IMHO BO's tech doesn't seem to be very much of an advance from WaW. I can tell I hurt his feelings.

 

[AlNom]

I think BO has fantastic lighting, character work and weapons.

Well I agree, at least.


Looking over the images in the gallery, I thought these two were quite exceptional for lighting/shading (skin-work in particular):
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_023.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_036.jpg.jpg

 

[Boxercide]

Or how PS3 SPU's are used in COD engine, that would be awesome info

I wonder if MLAA was considered instead of 2xMSAA. If the GPU is limited, depending on the tech, this might have been a trade off with a benefit. Complete speculation, naturally.

 

[Barbarian]

Or how PS3 SPU's are used in COD engine, that would be awesome info

The SPUs are pretty heavily used. A lot of engine code runs on them, physics, sound, graphics prep, GPU submission, culling, dynamic geo generation etc.
On 360 the situation is similar, every HW thread is heavily used.

 

[Barbarian]

Looking over the images in the gallery, I thought these two were quite exceptional for lighting/shading (skin-work in particular):
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_023.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_036.jpg.jpg

Haha, I'm glad you appreciate the Pentagon Lady.
You wouldn't believe the hours I spent making sure those eyebrows look good (involves boring technical details on anisotropic bias and facial UV mappings )

 

[Barbarian]

I wonder if MLAA was considered instead of 2xMSAA. If the GPU is limited, depending on the tech, this might have been a trade off with a benefit. Complete speculation, naturally.

Well, of course we considered it. I'm a big MLAA proponent as you might know, However we found negligible gains from turning MSAA off. I know GOW reported massive savings - the only way I can explain the discrepancy is that GOW runs at 720p and maybe it matters more at that resolution.

 

[joker454]

Well, of course we considered it. I'm a big MLAA proponent as you might know, However we found negligible gains from turning MSAA off. I know GOW reported massive savings - the only way I can explain the discrepancy is that GOW runs at 720p and maybe it matters more at that resolution.

Hey did you guys have to go with a lower poly count (generally speaking) to accommodate 3d? If you did, then maybe a lower poly count helped reduce the msaa performance hit?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well I agree, at least.


Looking over the images in the gallery, I thought these two were quite exceptional for lighting/shading (skin-work in particular):
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_023.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles/a/1/2/9/8/6/2/6/360_036.jpg.jpg

Aye those are phenomenal. I especially like the one in the pentagon. The lighting combined with the material of her blouse is fantastic.

Haha, I'm glad you appreciate the Pentagon Lady.
You wouldn't believe the hours I spent making sure those eyebrows look good (involves boring technical details on anisotropic bias and facial UV mappings )

Great job! I'm particularly biased as I love 40's and 50's era female dress styles. Although in that linked picture her left (right side in picture) eye looks a bit odd, pupil doesn't look to be in the right place. But that's minor compared to how well it looks overall. The light smoke haze is also particularly well done in that scene.

Why are there never any authors attached to any of these Eurogamer face-to-face comparisons? Why do they seem to want to want to remain anonymous so badly? I don't get it.

I believe all the comparison pieces are done either by grandmaster or...argh. I can't remember the guys handle. But the other guy stopped posting on B3D a while back.

Both of them try to remain unbiased to the best of human ability. They are both equally critical of both the PS3 and X360 when it warrants it.

Regards,
SB