Digital Foundry tech analysis channel at Eurogamer

[liolio]

I don't like how Mazinger extrapolate some lack of pixel shading for the 360 due a the extra vertex load. That's a pure supposition. Basically the team spent one year only tweaking the engine and so the perfs as most of the content was there already. That's extra time is imho more relevant than any free supposition about hardware limits. For once I don't like the article anyway I don't like ninja gaiden either
EDIT
It's the same the other way around, they may have favor heavy pixel shading load to vertex one because in the end it looks better not because the ps3 may not have handle it.

 

[SonComet]

I don't like how Mazinger extrapolate some lack of pixel shading for the 360 due a the extra vertex load. That's a pure supposition. Basically the team spent one year only tweaking the engine and so the perfs as most of the content was there already. That's extra time is imho more relevant than any free supposition about hardware limits. For once I don't like the article anyway I don't like ninja gaiden either
EDIT
It's the same the other way around, they may have favor heavy pixel shading load to vertex one because in the end it looks better not because the ps3 may not have handle it.

Why do you think this? Do you feel that the 360 could have handled the extra vertex load and pixel shading with some extra time?

 

[obonicus]

On page 1 you say NG is running @ 1280x718 on PS3. On page 2 you callout 360 with the sub-HD decry. Pixel counters and the like, pride themselves on technicalities. It doesn't matter how far above the 480 hardline of the previous generation we are now, nor does it matter what eye candy is on screen at said higher-than-480-resolution. There is a hardline 720p or 1080p or bust mentality.

Therefore, NG is also (insert zomg) sub-HD and entitled to all derision and soapboxing that entails from the usual ilk.

Actually, don't we generally use 'sub-HD' exclusively for games that are rendered to a lower resolution and upscaled? It seems that there are more games on the rendering resolution thread that have black bars but are still listed at 720p. Though there's a couple of games with black borders that are listed as less than 720p, hmm.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Basically the team spent one year only tweaking the engine and so the perfs as most of the content was there already. That's extra time is imho more relevant than any free supposition about hardware limits.

Not sure why you'd like to make such assumption when you know practically nothing about the game. NGS2 is not just a simple tweak of the original version. There had been tons of added contents. Not only that, a lot of the original contents had been heavily modified in both graphics and game play. Not to mention that the game was built from scratch with new engine.

And NG2 was in developement for more than 2 years with over 100 Team Ninja staffs, while NGS2 took about a year with half that number. Don't forget NG2 was the third game TN worked on 360, while NGS2 is only their second on PS3 and a Metroid game for Wii was in development at the same period by TN.

Also why is it so hard to understand that more vertex means less pixel in unified shader structure? There're few other examples like Fallout 3. The game runs smoother on 360 with 4 x MSAA, but PS3 version got more pixel shader at work.

 

[liolio]

Not sure why you'd like to make such assumption when you know practically nothing about the game. NGS2 is not just a simple tweak of the original version. There had been tons of added contents. Not only that, a lot of the original contents had been heavily modified in both graphics and game play. Not to mention that the game was built from scratch with new engine.

And NG2 was in developement for more than 2 years with over 100 Team Ninja staffs, while NGS2 took about a year with half that number. Don't forget NG2 was the third game TN worked on 360, while NGS2 is only their second on PS3 and a Metroid game for Wii was in development at the same period by TN.

Also why is it so hard to understand that more vertex means less pixel in unified shader structure? There're few other examples like Fallout 3. The game runs smoother on 360 with 4 x MSAA, but PS3 version got more pixel shader at work.

Basically that's plain speculation, the team may have decided that focusing more processing resources on pixels shading give overall better results (and it does), no matter what the ps3 can handle. You're reading way too much into it. As for Fallout 3 well I don't know for sure but I remember reading that some missing normal maps were added after a patch on the 360. I'm not sure you should try to make point about the hardware especcially when there is a lot of thing in the air. That's it the point of comparison is to find out differences and overall which version is overall better (in that case obviously sigma2). Bringing iffy things about hardware based on design changed is not the best thing DF may do imho with all the critics it already receive and the "heat" around those subject I'm not sure it's the best thing to risk a unpartial reputation on some speculation bringing the hardware on the front side when it should be the software. It's an equilibrist job. But that's just my take anyway.

 

[liolio]

Actually, don't we generally use 'sub-HD' exclusively for games that are rendered to a lower resolution and upscaled? It seems that there are more games on the rendering resolution thread that have black bars but are still listed at 720p. Though there's a couple of games with black borders that are listed as less than 720p, hmm.

Overall I think he is right all this full HD hDready talk makes not much sense for me. Pc gamers deals with "more than SD resolution" for years whether is 1280x1024 1600x1200 or more I'm not sure they are concerned by some arbitrary chosen resolutions. Overall after all the talk from Ms and Sony it was normal that people have expectations for the hardware, right now... it's another matter (ie which version is better) but it could be perceived in a more constructive way depending of the game needs and what devs want to acheive tweaking the resolution to match perfs goals should be accepted. For some games 720p is welcome/needed especcially fps where you want to shoot stuffs in the background when they look as a tiny puddle of up-scaled pixels it can be bothering and it can be legitimate to question devs choices (as Laa -yosh said for halo3 for example and its huge scale battles).
Anyway it's pretty subjective.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Basically that's plain speculation, the team may have decided that focusing more processing resources on pixels shading give overall better results (and it does), no matter what the ps3 can handle. You're reading way too much into it. As for Fallout 3 well I don't know for sure but I remember reading that some missing normal maps were added after a patch on the 360. I'm not sure you should try to make point about the hardware especcially when there is a lot of thing in the air. That's it the point of comparison is to find out differences and overall which version is overall better (in that case obviously sigma2). Bringing iffy things about hardware based on design changed is not the best thing DF may do imho with all the critics it already receive and the "heat" around those subject I'm not sure it's the best thing to risk a unpartial reputation on some speculation bringing the hardware on the front side when it should be the software. It's an equilibrist job. But that's just my take anyway.

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. You DON'T have choice with fixed shader structure of RSX. You've got more pixel, less vertex, that's it. No other way around it like Xenos does.

And yes 360 version of Fallout 3 had its patch with normal map, but that doesn't cover everything. There're still lots of missing pixel shader work & normal map itself is still in lower res than PS3 version. We don't even know how this patch had impacted overall frame rate as well.

 

[AlNom]

Let's dial back the hostilities please...

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. You DON'T have choice with fixed shader structure of RSX. You've got more pixel, less vertex, that's it. No other way around it like Xenos does.

It's worth keeping in mind that the heavier vertex shader load would have been during those two or three cut-scenes with the hundreds of geometry instanced characters (no character variations, and simple animations at that).

I'm not convinced the actual gameplay portions were vertex shader limited though (except the stairs section, which they "patched"), at least not so much that it'd be a detriment to pixel shading. One could also argue the difference in actual pixel shading loads. Also keep in mind that the PS3's resolution would mean 40% higher pixel load. During a gameplay situation I'd be surprised if Xenos would need more than 1/3 of the shader arrays at a given time. i.e. 16 ALUs...

During those cut-scenes, even the lighting quality is not as easily noticeable compared to the rest of the game.

And yes 360 version of Fallout 3 had its patch with normal map, but that doesn't cover everything. There're still lots of missing pixel shader work & normal map itself is still in lower res than PS3 version. We don't even know how this patch had impacted overall frame rate as well.

The specular maps? I'm not sure that's a great example considering it was patched in the first place.

And NG2 was in developement for more than 2 years with over 100 Team Ninja staffs, while NGS2 took about a year with half that number. Don't forget NG2 was the third game TN worked on 360, while NGS2 is only their second on PS3 and a Metroid game for Wii was in development at the same period by TN.

It might be subjective, but neither DOA4 nor DOAX2 were particularly impressive compared to their last iterations on the first Xbox. They even dropped the framerate for DOAX2 to 30fps, and it was essentially a higher resolution version of DOAX.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

I'm not convinced the actual gameplay portions were vertex shader limited though (except the stairs section, which they "patched"), at least not so much that it'd be a detriment to pixel shading.

You should keep in mind that Ninja Gaiden 2 is a 60fps game, and with given complexity in geometry the game is definitely vertex heavy.

One could also argue the difference in actual pixel shading loads. Also keep in mind that the PS3's resolution would mean 40% higher pixel load. During a gameplay situation I'd be surprised if Xenos would need more than 1/3 of the shader arrays at a given time. i.e. 16 ALUs...

And you're forgetting that NGS2 has fewer onscreen enemies to shade at any given moment with reduced polys on backgrounds as well.

During those cut-scenes, even the lighting quality is not as easily noticeable compared to the rest of the game.

There are better examples of crowd rendering with a competent lighting model aren't there Gears 2, FNR4...

Unlike Gears or many other games, NG2 uses same in game assets in its cut scenes with same everything. So does NGS2.

The specular maps? I'm not sure that's a great example considering it was patched in the first place.

Yes it's been patched, but there're still lots of missing specular maps with bump maps in lower res in general. And we don't know how added specular maps had impacted on overall performance.

It might be subjective, but neither DOA4 nor DOAX2 were particularly impressive compared to their last iterations on the first Xbox. They even dropped the framerate for DOAX2 to 30fps, and it was essentially a higher resolution version of DOAX.

Neither the first NG Sigma was. In fact, Itagaki was very confident about tech in his game. He actually mentioned that from 1.5 years of experience on 360, his team was able to reach full potential of Xbox 360 with NG2 in one of his early interview.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Let's dial back the hostilities please...

Of course, but I'm just getting this feeling that B3D is getting no better than any other forums out there with so much fanboysm and biases. I'd rather go to GAF in this state.

 

[obonicus]

It's worth noting the obvious: that DF does not have the code for any of these games, so they have to make educated guesses. Grandmaster does it too. It's not something I'm crazy about (and may have mentioned it in the past), but it does increase the level of discourse by offering an informed analysis of games.

 

[obonicus]

Overall I think he is right all this full HD hDready talk makes not much sense for me.

That's not what he said. He's arguing about the use of the term 'sub-HD'. I'm saying that historically, it seems that games that render lower-res but do not upscale (i.e. black bars) get a pass as 720p. Or so it seems from resolutions list. Maybe it's worth it to redefine the term, but I think it's more important to pick a definition and use it consistently.

 

[Dr. Nick]

Of course, but I'm just getting this feeling that B3D is getting no better than any other forums out there with so much fanboysm and biases. I'd rather go to GAF in this state.

Ok I read through the article and as someone who has followed the dealings of Team Ninja since the Sega Saturn days I'm impressed by this write up and I don't see how anyone can take offense with it. Ninja Gaiden 2 oddly enough was published by Microsoft everywhere except for Japan so it is by and by an Xbox 360 exclusive and they certainly took advantage of it. I wouldn't be surprised if somethings were done to make life a bit harder on those left behind. If you look at later interviews I doubt Itagaki ever liked the idea of Sigma.

I think part of the reason things turned out they way they did was because of the two games having different directors and therefore having different design priorities. Like for instance Itagaki seemed vehemently opposed to letting you play as a female in the Ninja Gaiden series, he didn't like the idea of multiplayer either but once given to another director all of those things are put on the table. I think the guys left behind did a very good job and in some case made better decisions when it comes to the games graphics. Ninja Gaiden 2 would have been more impressive exclusive if they had managed everything they did at 720p...and if it was less buggy.

 

[MazingerDUDE]

Ninja Gaiden 2 oddly enough was published by Microsoft everywhere except for Japan so it is by and by an Xbox 360 exclusive and they certainly took advantage of it. I wouldn't be surprised if somethings were done to make life a bit harder on those left behind. If you look at later interviews I doubt Itagaki ever liked the idea of Sigma.

Tecmo was more or less the only Japanese game corporation that supported Xbox as their main priority console. As MS was and still is trying very hard to make its ground in Japan, Tecmo must was extremely valuable 'ally'. Well, that was old Xbox era anyway, MS is getting plenty of supports from Japan nowadays, probably more so than PS3, which of course in turn makes Tecmo's role much smaller than ever before. There're just no more reasons to cling on to Tecmo with whatever special treats MS may have provided in old Xbox days.

When I first played NG2 on 360, I instantly recognized that the game would be extremely hard to port over to PS3 with its vertex, alpha heavy nature. Especially with NGS1 barely maintaining its frame rate with 3 enemies onscreen. (on considerably simpler background as well) The game being sub HD is also minus for PS3, simply because it costs extra to upscale in RSX. I'm actually a bit surprised that it turned out as well as it did. I do wish that they had gone with triple buffering to get rid of screen tearing, and possibly more optimized SPU coding for more on screen enemies, but hey you can't have Naughty Dog or Santa Monica in every PS3 games.

In the end, we have prettier NG game on PS3, but NG2 has its own charm with more fanatic action made possible by 360's own strength.

 

[liolio]

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. You DON'T have choice with fixed shader structure of RSX. You've got more pixel, less vertex, that's it. No other way around it like Xenos does.

Of course, but I'm just getting this feeling that B3D is getting no better than any other forums out there with so much fanboysm and biases. I'd rather go to GAF in this state.

Don't take it for yourself in that way. You did quiet a lot of work for this article it just that (for once) I find that the take of vertex processing and system resources in this regard is a bit iffy.
Edge library should allow to "cull the hell out" of these many encounters greatly reducing the pressure on the RSX. For me it has more to do with design choices by the dev team.
Personally I got put off by the cam when I tried the demo (on the 360) I should may give the game another try may be the entry price is worse it. Anyway I don't care much for the gore effect and I would personally tend to back up the choices that have been made on the ps3 rendition, clearer look, more beautiful a more reasonable amount of encounters ( a bit more reactive from the review some review I read) and a game that seems a bit less difficult.

 

[2real4tv]

Nice article on NG, gave me some visual examples of what some of the posters on here have been saying about multiplat dev between the two systems.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Nice article on NG, gave me some visual examples of what some of the posters on here have been saying about multiplat dev between the two systems.

I'm not sure NG(S)2 is a good example to use for multi-plat, as the remaining members that took over followed a different vision for the game than the ones that left. Some of the changes in gameplay never would have been allowed for NG2 under the previous leadership and dev team, for example. Which would have affected how the port was done.

Regards,
SB

 

[Alucardx23]

At MazingerDUDE

First let me congratulate you on a great article. I understand that the 360 has 48 parallel shaders capable of operating on data for both pixels and vertices, so it makes sense that if you have a vertex heavy scene you have less performance for pixel shaders, but in the article you say that Ninja Gaiden 2 is targeted for maximum performance on each console, but on 360 isn’t this has to do more with a developer decision of pushing more vertex shaders than pixel shaders? Bellow is the part of the article I’m talking about.

" Overall, it's intriguing to see just how Team Ninja went about the business of crafting what is essentially the same game, but producing different versions that favour the technological advantages of both platforms. "

"However, the fact that both versions are individually targeted for maximum performance on each console results in two "mixes" of the core concept that Tecmo fans should seriously considering owning on both formats. "

 

[2real4tv]

I'm not sure NG(S)2 is a good example to use for multi-plat, as the remaining members that took over followed a different vision for the game than the ones that left. Some of the changes in gameplay never would have been allowed for NG2 under the previous leadership and dev team, for example. Which would have affected how the port was done.

Regards,
SB

I wish there their was compromise somewhere in between because the ps3 graphics are noticely better than the 360 version(at least the outdoor scenes). I have the 360 version and only played the demo of the ps3 version. If they would have sacrificed all little less enemies(not as many as the ps3 version) for improve IQ and lighting if it was possible on the 360.

 

[obonicus]

I'm not sure NG(S)2 is a good example to use for multi-plat, as the remaining members that took over followed a different vision for the game than the ones that left. Some of the changes in gameplay never would have been allowed for NG2 under the previous leadership and dev team, for example. Which would have affected how the port was done.

Pretty much. If NG2 had been as critically acclaimed as NG/NGB, would we have seen an attempt to replicate all the encounters faithfully? How much of putting in stronger, fewer enemies was an attempt to rebalance and how much was it a compromise for technology? The subway-worm boss tunnel fight, is that gone because of technical reasons or because everyone hated it?