Full Auto 2: Battlelines Interview

[Bad_Boy]

Some more screens, seems to be of a different location in the game...
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063236145.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063229286.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063232224.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063230755.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063227833.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063233520.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/726/726086/full-auto-2-battlelines-20060816063234770.jpg

edit:

Sounds like graphically the game is better than the first, but still has that framerate issue. Hopefully they can fix that by launch.

Full Auto 2 is looking good and solid right now. The art style is unmistakably similar to the first game, and the level of visual fidelity is actually just about the same, from what we saw. The textures might be a little sharper and some of the effects a little more real, but visually the two games are pretty comparable. Performance was fairly fluid, though the frame rate bogged down some during intense moments. However, the developers are targeting a consistent 60 frames per second for launch, and Sega says the game is in the feature-complete alpha stage at this point, which means the code wizards have a good long while to spend on bug fixes and optimizations.

an interesting bit...

It's also worth noting that we played Full Auto 2's multiplayer on the actual PlayStation network platform, so apparently Sony already has its online gaming infrastructure up and running well ahead of the new system's release.

 

[hey69]

gameplay movie here:

http://gamevideos.com/video/watch?video=5105&largeFormat=wmv

 

[ZiFF]

gameplay movie here:

http://gamevideos.com/video/watch?video=5105&largeFormat=wmv

Framerate seems okay to me?

 

[3roxor]

Graphics seem to improve steadily but the gameplay doesn't look very interesting. Don't think I would buy this game.

 

[Bad_Boy]

A dev interview from GameInformer:
http://gameinformer.com/News/Media/Media.htm?CS_pid={2F1A53E4-1BBE-40CA-B007-3348487477CB}
"Mike Gallo Interview Part 1 + Mike Gallo Interview Part 2"

Seems theres quite a bit of improvements over the last version. He kinda dodges a few questions I thought, but it seems Sega is planning full auto 3 for all platforms next time around. But obviously he wouldnt confirm that.

 

[predicate]

I'm with Hardknock on this one. Textures are noticeably worse on the PS3 version:

360, notice the high detail and specularity of the tarmac:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/012/reviews/928116_20060113_screen005.jpg

PS3, ground texture is a lot lower detail, very blurry, practically Burnout 3 quality:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen011.jpg

This does seem to match up with what Starbreeze said about their game having lower quality texturing on the PS3 version because of RAM limitations. I wonder if it'll become a trend?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not a fair comparison. The PS3 view is much lower and closer to the tarmac, so you'll have greater pixelation and blurring due to lack of AF (which both versions have, or rather haven't). You'd need a similar viewpoint to compare textures when factoring in filtering.

 

[mrboo]

I'm with Hardknock on this one. Textures are noticeably worse on the PS3 version:

360, notice the high detail and specularity of the tarmac:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/012/reviews/928116_20060113_screen005.jpg

PS3, ground texture is a lot lower detail, very blurry, practically Burnout 3 quality:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen011.jpg

This does seem to match up with what Starbreeze said about their game having lower quality texturing on the PS3 version because of RAM limitations. I wonder if it'll become a trend?

"Graphically, the game has the same style as the previous game, but it
does look a touch sharper and more detailed than the Xbox 360 game. We
saw a handful of explosions, and the frame rate seemed pretty good."

 

[predicate]

*GASP* Gamespot said they think it looks sharper? Well gosh darn! I guess my very own eyes must be lying to me when I can clearly see appreciably lower resolution textures in the PS3 game!

Not a fair comparison. The PS3 view is much lower and closer to the tarmac, so you'll have greater pixelation and blurring due to lack of AF (which both versions have, or rather haven't). You'd need a similar viewpoint to compare textures when factoring in filtering.

Fine, take a look at other shots:

360:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/012/reviews/928116_20060113_screen001.jpg

PS3:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen006.jpg

It would be fine and dandy if there was noticeably higher detail elsewhere to justify a tradeoff, but there isn't. The PS3 game has lower resolution texture work, which corroborates exactly with what other developers have been saying.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Fine, take a look at other shots:

That' s better comparisons and does show what you say.

 

[3roxor]

@ predicate
Why don't you download some gameplay vids? The ground textures look atleast on par with the 360 version and nothing like that pic you posted..

 

[predicate]

@ predicate
Why don't you download some gameplay vids? The ground textures look atleast on par with the 360 version and nothing like that pic you posted..

I'd gladly do so if you could point me somewhere with proper 1280x720 trailers instead of blurry stuff that it's impossible to make any significant judgement from.

 

[Hardknock]

*GASP* Gamespot said they think it looks sharper? Well gosh darn! I guess my very own eyes must be lying to me when I can clearly see appreciably lower resolution textures in the PS3 game!

Fine, take a look at other shots:

360:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/012/reviews/928116_20060113_screen001.jpg

PS3:
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen006.jpg

It would be fine and dandy if there was noticeably higher detail elsewhere to justify a tradeoff, but there isn't. The PS3 game has lower resolution texture work, which corroborates exactly with what other developers have been saying.

This man is correct. I immediately noticed the downgrades having played Full Auto 1 myself for 360. I don't understand how everyone else can't see it? The cars and lighting look dull aswell. The only improvements I've noticed graphically is the smoke.

 

[Hardknock]

@ predicate
Why don't you download some gameplay vids? The ground textures look atleast on par with the 360 version and nothing like that pic you posted..

How in the world can you judge ground textures from the videos available?

 

[Iron Tiger]

This man is correct. I immediately noticed the downgrades having played Full Auto 1 myself for 360. I don't understand how everyone else can't see it? The cars and lighting look dull aswell. The only improvements I've noticed graphically is the smoke.

The difference is in the lighting. FA1 looks like Burnout 1, while FA2 looks like Burnout 3. It's not photorealistic, but it's a step closer. It may only be an artistic improvement rather than a technical one, but it's still an improvement.

 

[3roxor]

I'd gladly do so if you could point me somewhere with proper 1280x720 trailers instead of blurry stuff that it's impossible to make any significant judgement from.

Can't do. I can only offer you to compare the shit 360 vids with the shit ps3 version vids.

How in the world can you judge ground textures from the videos available?

How in the world can you judge ground textures from the pictures available? (whispers something about motorstorm)

 

[Mmmkay]

How in the world can you judge ground textures from the videos available?

A better question may be how in the world can you judge a game still in development against a published title?

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/725/725845p1.html

The game was running on final dev kits of the PS3 hardware, and we were informed that the build we were playing was an alpha build that was essentially feature complete, albeit without optimization.

 

[Hardknock]

A better question may be how in the world can you judge a game still in development against a published title?

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/725/725845p1.html

Those pictures are from the "still in development" Xbox 360 version.

 

[Mmmkay]

Those pictures are from the "still in development" Xbox 360 version.

You mean the ones dated Jan 13th, 2 weeks before it went gold? That's quite a difference to a game still in alpha.

 

[Hardknock]

You mean the ones dated Jan 13th, 2 weeks before it went gold? That's quite a difference to a game still in alpha.

No the ones dated December 12th (2 months before the game was released on Feb. 15th) have noticably superior textures and lighting compared to the PS3 version at roughly the same point in development.

X360 Dec 12th:

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2005/345/reviews/928116_20051212_screen006.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2005/345/reviews/928116_20051212_screen007.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2005/345/reviews/928116_20051212_screen013.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2005/345/reviews/928116_20051212_screen001.jpg

Compared to the PS3 version dated 8/20/2006:

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen007.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/reviews/932850_20060816_screen006.jpg

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/227/932850_20060816_screen014.jpg