Digital Foundry tech analysis channel at Eurogamer

[SG79]

Whatever the case may be, everyone is cheering at the "loss" of that fight. I was hoping the one would be gone too, but since the damage level is reduced alongside the camera tweaks, it's much more manageable without pulling through your hair. lol

Aside from Gigadeth (the subway boss), the two armadillos were the most complained about fights on NGII in higher difficulties (MN was a nightmare particularly that the camera went haywire). But speaking of IS... yeah, that's one of the questionable design choices.

 

[Dr. Nick]

snip

I think the master ninja tournies or hurricane packs is where much of NG2 gameplay design came from. The game is almost as hard when you play path of the warrior.

 

[liolio]

I'm sorry, but I personally found that the Ninja Gaiden 2 comparison article Digital Foundry did to be very biased. It seemed as though the writer had an agenda in mind to put forth the assertion that the 360 hardware has many graphical capabilities that the PS3 cannot handle, many times denigrating the PS3 hardware and on the other hand seemingly talking up how advanced and powerful the 360's architecture is. The writer mentions the greater vertex capabilities and polygon-pushing power of the 360, and how the PS3 would be unable to handle it. Yet many of the comparison screens shown in the article itself totally contradict this argument of the 360 version having superior polygonal detail, with many shots showing greater polygon detail in both the environment and the character models on the PS3 side:

360: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/pixel_360_1.jpg.jpg
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/pixel_ps3_1.jpg.jpg

360: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/static_lighting_360_2.jpg.jpg
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/static_lighting_ps3_2.jpg.jpg

The difference in polygonal detail in both the models and environment are clear in many of these screenshots... in FAVOR of the PS3 version.

I don't buy it that the person who did the comparison came up with the argument that the 360 has too much vertex capability for the PS3 to handle, because all he used to prove his point were comparison screens from a specific cutscene, a cutscene in which many werewolves were repeated over and over through a clever trick of instancing. Perhaps the instancing code wasn't working or performing as efficiently in the PS3 iteration, so they had to scale back the number of characters in this one particular cutscene. Still, I don't see this as proof that the PS3 version being inferior in terms of overall polygon performance, because the many of the screen comparisons don't bear this out. The writer is trying to make the argument that the 360 version is better in some ways, and the PS3 in some ways, but I think it's extremely lopsided in almost all areas except for some transparency/alpha and blood effects being scaled down on the PS3 version.

Well Mazinger Dude can defend him-self but I would like to point you that I had my doubts about this particular face off. His analysis of the game has lead him to go down to the hardware to explain the differences between the two games. It's a risky business and one can end off. Point is Mazinger-Dude is wiling to discuss his POV and he provided explanations about why he came to that conclusion (here and in the article actually). He could be wrong it's disputable but you should not imho confuse "misled" and "biaised" as a start for a constructive discussion imho.

In regard to the increased vertex load in NG 2 is due to the extra characters not to more detailed characters or environments. But Mazinger Dude doesn't only consider vertex load he also considers bandwidth constrains introduced by transparencies and overdraws.
I read again the Epic presentation about the gore effect in GeoW2 to try to understand the stress that kind of effects put on a system. I have questions in this regard but that's for a latter post I guess.

 

[brain_stew]

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.

As long as its made explicitly clear that it is an educated estimate, then I'd on't see the issue. Pass it off as fact, then yeah, that's when the problems arrive but its fine to open the debate and offer suggestions as to why certain choices may have been made, it leads to some pretty interesting discussion imo. Offering alternative views as to what may have been the motivation between certain choices, would further cement the validity of such segments imo.

 

[Billy Idol]

I'm not so sure about the easy approach of ngs 2 on the 360 hardware...light, rendering of shadows, specular maps...tecmo said to prefer ps3 hardware in its recent quote and ngs 2 show clearly that adding even a resolution boost and a good polish of the engine. Said subhd 585p with more enemies and overdraws impossible on the ps3 (we talking of 585p) but to reverse 720p 2xAA with more light, self shadowing and pixel shaders easy on the 360, not seems give justice to the work of the ps3 hardware. IMHO. And let me do a little OT to criticize eurogamer analysis: probably I'm paranoic, who know, but for the most of the tech analysis I have notice a tendency to bias everything about ps3 hardware, a maniac research of its limits in every game; don't get me wrong, it isn't a bad thing but I don't understand why 360 game not have the same treatment. I'm not refer to MazingerDude, to be clear, probably the only shows the same approach on both hardware.

Based on this recent article: how can you or someone else here scent a bias against PS3, when the final verdict was/is that the PS3 version is the better version:

On balance, the PS3 version is the one to have: polygon reductions aside, the improved bling is simply gorgeous throughout the game. Not only that but there are bonus playable characters, online support, plus rejigged boss encounters.

PS: mighty fine work MazingerDUDE, thanks a lot and keep on rockin!!

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Bias talk

We can discuss quality of analysis and if maybe too many assumptions were made without knowledge of code but we cannot know the motivation of a person.

I have read the analysis and I feel it makes sense. I think there is some mistake. For example, LOD has very different use in PS3 version.

For example, the picture with the lamp-post. You can see that in the 360 version the first lamp-post has less detail and second and third lamp-post at just 2D sprites.

But in PS3 version, even the 2nd lamp-post is 3D object with perspective correct look.

360: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/pixel_360_1.jpg.jpg
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/pixel_ps3_1.jpg.jpg

Also we see in the other picture, the PS3 leaves have more detailed look and has extra details like grate added under the bridge.

360: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/static_lighting_360_2.jpg.jpg
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/1/5/3/8/0/static_lighting_ps3_2.jpg.jpg


To me all of this is because of alpha not vertex issue. Because PS3 has not as much bandwidth for alpha it has to use polygons for many things that can look good enough with alpha texture object. But it also does not mean that 360 cannot use polygons for those scenes because we see some scenes where 360 version has much more polygons and it does not mean that PS3 has less polygons because maybe if it had more FB bandwidth maybe it can do more polygons for other things like 360. So we have to be careful how we make assumptions.

The mistakes in the article and in comments here is to assume that 3rd party will not be able to get more polygons from PS3 than 360 and that if 360 version had less polygons it will have the same pixel-shader quality as PS3 version.

It is difficult to make these assumptions without more information.

Maybe a programmer can tell us:

If 360 version of Ninja Gaiden had half the polygons at maximum scenes (I assume PS3 version has half) will it have (without tiling or AA so it can fit EDRAM) 40% increased resolution (720P) and same pixel-shader quality as the PS3 version?

Also, does any version have HDR?

 

[Prophecy2k]

As long as its made explicitly clear that it is an educated estimate, then I'd on't see the issue. Pass it off as fact, then yeah, that's when the problems arrive but its fine to open the debate and offer suggestions as to why certain choices may have been made, it leads to some pretty interesting discussion imo. Offering alternative views as to what may have been the motivation between certain choices, would further cement the validity of such segments imo.

I'm sorry folks but whether intended by MessengerDude or not, the entire article does read like a rather slanted take (towards the 360) when anyone and his mum can clearly see the PS3 version as superior.

Personally I have no problem with MessengerDude writing an article that makes open and honest suggestions as to the design decisions of the developers for both NG2 & NGS2... However the DF article doesn't read like that. His statements about the decisions being almost entirely based on hardware performance considerations (and NOTHING else) seem so absolute, that one would think that he had some first hand information from the developers themselves.

It's fine to make a suggestion based on opinion, but when there are CLEARLY other considerations that could have just as easily been the deciding factors for the devs, without first-hand knowledge, I fail to see how MessengerDude can be so absolute in his article. For me there are too many unknowns that yet still remain, for the article to be written in the way it is.

Also, MessengerDude you say that the shader performance of both RSX and Xenos are more or less equal, with Xenos having an advantage with a more flexible unified setup... but you then assert with such resoluteness that the 360 could replicate everything in NGS2 identically??? This I can't possibly concieve since none of us have any idea how much SPU utilisation the NGS2 code has. And you say that even if it has some, the 360 could probably replicate it? I'd really like to know how? Since using the SPUs on PS3 would imply pretty much maxing out the RSX, and so i'd imagine it would likely be close to doing so on Xenos (at the PS3 version resolution with same AA). So without Xenos what else can the 360 use to do the job of the SPUs on CELL?

I'm simply curious as to why MessengerDude seems so sure of his opinions about the HW performance of both the PS3 and 360 and its relation to the resultant versions of the game.

 

[Acert93]

EDITED

<snip> (Lets hope he's still around when the next gen comes out so he can explain to us why the best looking games this gen are on PS3)<snip>

I would suggest listening to what developers say, they are often quite nuanced in regards to this very issue. Obviously there is a very basic issue in game development: Budgets.

How skilled is your staff? Experienced?
How big is your staff?
How big is your fiscal budget?
How big is your development window?

And there are little things like how well does your art design map to your technology; and how well does your technology map to your hardware.

As for the hardware, you don't find many developers saying the PS3 is craptastic. Instead take someone like John Carmack who has said it potentially is more powerful, but it requires a lot more work to get parity and even more so to extract the extra performance--and in John's own words, he expected mainly it would be only Sony studios and sponsored titles to do this.

Classic example if you listen to what he is saying there is a lot of parallelism with the real market as well as truth in the nuances.

To put your quote on its head I would deposit two points: The first is your insinuation will have a LOT to prove at the end of this gen when by far the massive majority of multiplatorm titles are either minimally on par or if not better on the 360. Who is going to explain why in general the majority of software on multiple platforms looks better on the 360...

The other element is there is more to software and an engine than just the renderer. e.g. Why are MS studio multiplayer features and options so often heads-and-shoulders above everyone else?

The obvious conclusion must be the 360 hardware is superior for the best online experience ...

Or maybe the software emphasis and design and resource allocation (people, budgets, design philosophy and compromises, etc) is different. Maybe instead of using the 6 HW threads for graphics tasks they are using them for other things.

Some of the recent threads, where basic concepts like fillrate just go right over people's heads, makes me wonder if a lot of people only understand the hardware as a single linear resource with a single metric of performance.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Please don't say bias.

I'm simply curious as to why MessengerDude seems so sure of his opinions about the HW performance of both the PS3 and 360 and its relation to the resultant versions of the game.

I think he is correct to say performance is why PS3 and 360 version is different. PS3 version uses new PS3 engine and assets are redesigned for maximum use of that.

Is the rendering system for PS3 engine using SPUs? Who can know but the developer. I feel it is not likely because of low control latency requirement of NG2 will make it difficult to have much SPU.

Probably they are using just edge culling and RSX. It is maybe basic level hardware use but fast and has good results.

My feeling (not scientific) is that RSX pixel shader is maxed. It is really beautiful and has crazy pixel shader details. I think more than complain about not enough SPU use we must say wow for quality of RSX use. They make great texture and shader performance. Beautiful. Also we must not forget that DF said that PS3's discrete shaders is why PS3 version has so much more "bling."

Can it have more polygons? Probably. But I don't think you can expect that with this 1st version of this game engine. I think maybe 2nd version (NG3) can be much better.

Look at Uncharted 1 and 2.

 

[obonicus]

Talking about bias isn't helpful. You may not agree with the analysis done (there are several conclusions the blog comes to that I don't agree with) but don't accuse them of bias. Hell, read the conclusion -- he says he likes the PS3 version better. (Or go through Mazinger's post history to see just how much he hates the PS3.) But the point of DF (and i may be wrong) isn't to say that they like a game better or not, it's to try and analyze games objectively and divine technical data from them.

MazingerDude's premise was that that the changes from NG2 to NGS2 were purely technical. He of course does not know, but he's making educated guesses based on what evidence we do have. He didn't doctor the screencaps that show half of the werewolves in NGS2 during cutscenes.

 

[obonicus]

As long as its made explicitly clear that it is an educated estimate, then I'd on't see the issue. Pass it off as fact, then yeah, that's when the problems arrive but its fine to open the debate and offer suggestions as to why certain choices may have been made, it leads to some pretty interesting discussion imo. Offering alternative views as to what may have been the motivation between certain choices, would further cement the validity of such segments imo.

I was actually saying it was worthwhile. I don't usually agree with several of the conclusions (and a while back I had a big argument about a certain article here) but I think that in general DF is a great resource.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

I don't think there is bias

I was actually saying it was worthwhile. I don't usually agree with several of the conclusions (and a while back I had a big argument about a certain article here) but I think that in general DF is a great resource.

When a game like WipeoutHD, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 has best graphics they have said it and even show great detail about PS3 optmization with Cell.

I think they are tech fanboys (or girls), not PS3 or 360 fanboys.

Sometimes they make little mistakes (like ROP issue) and not all conclusions are 100% solid but I feel they do a good job and try hard. I think they have done a good job also to create hardware conversations so people understand that unified shaders is a "zero sum game," not infinite magical resource and issues like control latency.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I wasn't trying to claim "bias" on the part of MessengerDude with the DF article. I do think it was wonderful in pointing out the fundamental differences between the two versions, and even his suggestions while sounding a bit too conclusive for my liking, were rather useful in pointing out the separate HW considerations that may also be presented to other devs working on other projects when doing a similar porting job.

My own issue was with the wording of the article. I do think it could have been worded slightly more liberally so as to allow the readers who are sensitive to their own console biases (and of course I'm sure MessengerDude is well aware that many readers will be) to focus on what the article is intending to present... i.e. a solid and thorough techinical comparison of what is essentially a very atypical port of a game from 360 to PS3. One that deserves due credit.

I'm sure MessengerDude is very much aware of his audience, hence as a constructive critique more than anything else I'd ask him to consider his wordings for future articles so as to avoid provoking certain responses. He deserves more credit for his hard work, and I feel it's a shame that some will not see that while crying "bias" or "fanboyism" all because of the way in which an article is written.

 

[AlNom]

General Reminder:

This is not a thread or forum for bashing or bias. This is supposed to be a forum for mature and thoughtful discussion. If you have issues with statements or conclusions or explanations on the technical points, please back it up with genuine questions or ideas.

Because the DF is to be a technical analyses, there shouldn't be any other sort of discussion besides the technical statements and conclusions. We can go for an eternity discussing what you liked or didn't like about the writing or style, bias, fanboyism. This detracts from what should be the focus: The technical discussion, especially on this forum of most places.

 

[obonicus]

(...) writing or style (...)

Really? We can't comment on writing on a gaming news site? It's not like writing can't be analyzed objectively. If this is meant to be a purely technical discussion isn't there a better forum for this, with much stricter rules, rather than stifling discussion in the general console forum?

 

[AlNom]

Really? We can't comment on writing on a gaming news site? It's not like writing can't be analyzed objectively. If this is meant to be a purely technical discussion isn't there a better forum for this, with much stricter rules, rather than stifling discussion in the general console forum?

If you have issues with statements or conclusions or explanations on the technical points, please back it up with genuine questions or ideas.

And why shouldn't the rest of the forums be held to a higher standard than calling out bias and fanboyism, making hostile comments to other users whilst expecting a good-natured response... :| If you don't like it, there are other websites with more lax rules. And this certainly isn't the place for discussing whether or not a forum should be strict.

So again, if you dislike something, make it into a proper argument with points of interest that don't just attack the individual. Make it about the content. This should be a place for learning regardless of what you consider a "general forum for consoles" to be so dispensing with hostile stances would be a great first thing to do (H-culling or H-pre pass posting ). Welcome to Beyond3D. That's what I'm getting at.

 

[obonicus]

And why shouldn't the rest of the forums be held to a higher standard than calling out bias and fanboyism... :|

I'm not commenting on the bias or fanboyism statement. You know I've gotten into trouble here complaining (in the wrong place) about people casting fanboyism aspersions. (In fact, isn't calling someone biased like that against the rules?)

I'm saying that in the tech forum any discussion that isn't tech is off-topic, at least according to rules (for instance, it seems to me that the discussion about the influence of gameplay on NGS2's design choices would be OT). If the intention is to guide all discussion in that direction, then it seems like this should be a tech discussion and leave this forum. While it's here, it seems that there are subjects that aren't purely technical (such as writing or commentary on the quality of the articles) that can be discussed and still not go off-topic.

 

[assurdum]

Based on this recent article: how can you or someone else here scent a bias against PS3, when the final verdict was/is that the PS3 version is the better version:


PS: mighty fine work MazingerDUDE, thanks a lot and keep on rockin!!

Probably you haven't read the whole post but I'm not refer to that analysis in particular but in general to eurogamer tech articles. And obvious, would be a paradox to say 360 better version at the blurried 585p only for the final level bloom; the rest of the game is a terrible mess graphically compared to ps3 version.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This thread has run its course. Technical discussion based on the DF articles is to be moved to the new Tech Forum DF thread. The latest NG2 talk has been relocated. Remarks about writing style, editorial bias, etc. should be directed directly to DF, ideally in the comments section of relevant articles. If you desperately need to contact the DF crew about something not technical, you can always pester grandmaster or MazingDUDE via PM.