The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*

[Arwin]

This'll complicate matters regards your choice:

PS3 Mass Effect 2 uses ME3 engine

"We actually created the engine for Mass Effect 3 and used that to make Mass Effect 2 PS3. So we took the content, the story and all of the other assets that made up Mass Effect 2 and we put it into the Mass Effect 3 engine.

It also includes DLC content, so it sounds like good value.

And it comes on only one disc ...

Seriously, I'm glad it comes with a demo. I've been intrigued but not quite convinced by this game yet (only briefly tried the PC demo on a crappy PC). Will be good to see how the ME3 engine runs at least.

EDIT: doesn't who much, but here's a side-by-side:
http://uk.ign.com/videos/2010/12/16/mass-effect-2-touring-the-normandy

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/114/1140265p1.html

 

[kagemaru]

That's some poor wording IMO. When most people read "we actually created the engine", they will probably think it's an entirely new engine and no longer running on UE3.

Looking forward to seeing the improvements though.

 

[Prophecy2k]

That's some poor wording IMO. When most people read "we actually created the engine", they will probably think it's an entirely new engine and no longer running on UE3.

Looking forward to seeing the improvements though.

Are you sure about the assumptions you're making there ol' pal?... Has Bioware explicitly stated anything with regards the ME3 engine other than the comments spoken in the link?

They say they ported the assets from ME2 to their new ME3 engine. Surely that means to me that they built a "new*" engine for their 3rd Mass Effect game, and not that they just updated to the current build of UE3 licensed from Unreal...?

I don't think Bioware have said anything about their ME3 engine before this, so there's no reason to think that the "new*" ME3 engine won't be their own proprietary tech and not UE3 based on these comments.

*NB. "new" could also mean that they've made their own heavy and specialised modifications to the tech they used in previous ME games, code which belongs to them and won't exist in other UE3 games. Hence their new engine may be based on UE3 source code, but modded significantly for their own personal use, so much so that they call it their "new" engine...

 

[AlNom]

Are you sure about the assumptions you're making there ol' pal?... *snip*

I think you're overthinking it. Considering the 2 year cycle, they'd be crazy not to just be building upon advances made to ME2, which is just advances to ME1, all built on UE3.0. Considering how vastly different the game is in all aspects compared to your bog-standard 3rd person UE3.0 game, it wouldn't be unfair to consider their changes extensive enough to mention it as "theirs" (character stats, customization, animation, lighting, streaming, non-linearity, dialogue trees, event triggering, stat collection, DLC integration, EA network integration etc). Now, whether the changes between ME2 and ME3 refer to Epic's own updates or BioWare's own changes to suit their needs is up for debate. In the end, I think it's simply as I've described and nothing more.

 

[kagemaru]

Are you sure about the assumptions you're making there ol' pal?... Has Bioware explicitly stated anything with regards the ME3 engine other than the comments spoken in the link?

They say they ported the assets from ME2 to their new ME3 engine. Surely that means to me that they built a "new*" engine for their 3rd Mass Effect game, and not that they just updated to the current build of UE3 licensed from Unreal...?

I don't think Bioware have said anything about their ME3 engine before this, so there's no reason to think that the "new*" ME3 engine won't be their own proprietary tech and not UE3 based on these comments.

Edit:

Basically what Al said. I see no reason for Bioware to scrap all the years of work they have done with UE3, custom or not, and start working on a "new" engine entirely this late in the generation.

*NB. "new" could also mean that they've made their own heavy and specialised modifications to the tech they used in previous ME games, code which belongs to them and won't exist in other UE3 games. Hence their new engine may be based on UE3 source code, but modded significantly for their own personal use, so much so that they call it their "new" engine...

I'm under the assumption that they have built new tech in their current engine which is based on UE3. I think some would read that quote and think ME3 runs on an entirely new engine not related to UE3 at all which I find hard to believe.

I understand that they could have made modifications to the engine featuring tech that wouldn't exist in other UE3 games, but at it's core the engine is still based on UE3. "New" is very vague when it comes to engines and can mean many things, I know this, but I don't think the average reader would realize this.

 

[nightshade]

Bioware obviously did their own modifications to the engine since they licensed it during the ME1 days, and that is what they'll be using instead of the one Epic recently showcased.

 

[Neb]

Little? For it reaches even below 20 fps sometimes in this video.

The Sony motion-compensation googles smooths it out, heh. /JK

But seriously it's seems quite a lot for those scenes that one has to wonder if it might be the video capture itself as in the encoding.. but one interesting thing I can mention is that cinematics uses extra lights to simulate IIRC GI/SSS. On PC it ranges depeding on settings from 1 to 3 lightsources in cutscenes. IIRC think it was 1 light for 360 specified in shader comment. Anyway these affect perfomance noticably. I saw a test once done though I dont remember what hardware was used but for that test 1 lightsource was about 60fps in tested cutscene, 2 lights ~50fps and 3 lights 35-40fps. Difference was subtle but there.

Wait until the analysis

Okay.. ಠ_ಠ

 

[AlNom]

Wait until the analysis

 

[kagemaru]

If I remember correctly it has never been a PS3 friendly engine and it will never be.

There fixed that for you I kid I kid.

Really though, I don't see how UE3 can't be seen as console friendly. Think about all of great looking and playing titles on the engine (ME1/2, Mirrors Edge, Gears 1&2, X-men Wolverine, Batman, etc) and I question how good some of these games would have turned out if the studios were forced to build their own engines. Not to mention how great upcoming games like Gears 3, Bioshock 3, and Bulletstorm look.

The engine may not have been console friendly in the early days of this gen, remember reading a developer comment on how UE3 was basically a PC engine shoe-horned into the 360 for Gears 1, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Epic knows the money is made on the console side, so I'm sure they have done nothing but optimize the hell out of the engine for both consoles.

 

[Cyan]

There fixed that for you I kid I kid.

Really though, I don't see how UE3 can't be seen as console friendly. Think about all of great looking and playing titles on the engine (ME1/2, Mirrors Edge, Gears 1&2, X-men Wolverine, Batman, etc) and I question how good some of these games would have turned out if the studios were forced to build their own engines. Not to mention how great upcoming games like Gears 3, Bioshock 3, and Bulletstorm look.

The engine may not have been console friendly in the early days of this gen, remember reading a developer comment on how UE3 was basically a PC engine shoe-horned into the 360 for Gears 1, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Epic knows the money is made on the console side, so I'm sure they have done nothing but optimize the hell out of the engine for both consoles.

I remember developers saying shadows mess with the MSAA hardware hence me saying, "not console friendly," ie. Sans prejudice.

But that's not the issue, it's just that this engine still over-produce, even with all the features that they threw away. Lots of games are using it because of its infrastructure. If they sold the engine to most third party developers (and they didn't squander it with their own poor choices) there still wouldn't be enough truly taking advantage of the consoles if there are features that don't work well at a core level.

The improvements would help, of course - but they wouldn't "feed" everyone. Anyway, to be honest, my views on the engine are old-fashioned now.

 

[Rotmm]

EDIT: Found more stuff from MazingerDude on Neogaf.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25042813&postcount=388

In my mind, the PS3 version looks slightly better, especially in the shadowing and self-shadowing department. In some cases (which is weird, as I don't recall it in-game, but it's been awhile) the 360 self-shadowing, especially on the face, looks really off, almost like when you hold a torch under your chin in a darkened room.

Also, in a couple of shots, it's apparent that they've upped the resolution of the character shadows. This is quite obvious in the 7th set of pics down, the one with Shepard holding his face. The PS3 version's shadow at the top, while somewhat pixellated, has a lot more detail than the low resolution shadow map on the 360 version. Also, using that shot it;s clear that the self-shadowing is much improved on the PS3 version, especially noticable with the shadow from the hand on the face. Also shown is better skin tones, making the textures look more detailed (though that may be down to the change in lighting, as the 360 pic looks quite washed out).

Overall, if this is the next iteration of the engine, I'm pleased. I was concerned, as I will have to get ME3 on 360 due to previous games being played on that platform. And while it's clear that there's not the visual jump seen from ME1 to ME2, at least it shows that going multiplatform isn't going to harm the 360 version too much.

 

[Trejser]

at least it shows that going multiplatform isn't going to harm the 360 version too much

You expected something like that?

 

[Rotmm]

You expected something like that?

Not that I expect it to look/run worse than ME2, but of course ME3 going multiplatform can mean looking at optimising for the lowest common denominator rather than further pushing the engine with new features, as evidenced by the huge visual jump from ME1 to ME2.

As an aside, after looking at the DF piece, it seems as though I was in error in my previous post, thinking that the PS3 pics from MazingerDude were the 360 ones and vice versa. So my comments on the PS3 version looking a little better (imho) were misplaced.

 

[Nesh]

Not that I expect it to look/run worse than ME2, but of course ME3 going multiplatform can mean looking at optimising for the lowest common denominator rather than further pushing the engine with new features, as evidenced by the huge visual jump from ME1 to ME2.

As an aside, after looking at the DF piece, it seems as though I was in error in my previous post, thinking that the PS3 pics from MazingerDude were the 360 ones and vice versa. So my comments on the PS3 version looking a little better (imho) were misplaced.

The lowest common denominator is subjective and depends on what the developers want to achieve. So based on that they might favor the specific strengths of one console over the other but will try to achieve parity of some sorts. And it can either be the PS3 or the 360 or none accordingly.

 

[L. Scofield]

The lowest common denominator is subjective and depends on what the developers want to achieve. So based on that they might favor the specific strengths of one console over the other but will try to achieve parity of some sorts. And it can either be the PS3 or the 360 or none accordingly.

We know that UE3 performs much better on 360 so the lowest common denominator in this case is most likely the PS3.

 

[Nesh]

We know that UE3 performs much better on 360 so the lowest common denominator in this case is most likely the PS3.

I was speaking generally. And yes I implied it that the PS3 may be the lowest common denominator in some cases. In the UE3 case it appears to be the PS3, yes

 

[Rotmm]

I was speaking generally.

Yes, I was talking in terms of Unreal Engine.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

EDRAM strikes again This is why I've never been a huge fan, though I'm too technically ignorant to be informed about that.

Without EDRAM other parts of the renderer and the game would suffer. Storing the framebuffers in main RAM would leave less room for textures, fill rate limitation would mean 1/4 resolution particle effects and even less alpha based stuff, and so on. EDRAM is very important for the 360.

In other words was PS3 version just subHD because it's basically multiplatform?

Highly unlikely. I'd guess the PS3 version runs at an even lower resolution.

Anyways as long as games are "720" vertical they seem to get a pass, at least Halo Reach did. A weird mental thing I guess.

More like optical, scaling along only one dimension is far less noticeable.And GT5 did get a pass too, along with a few different PS3 games that also relied on horizontal scaling only.
I've said it right after Reach was released that every dev should do this if they can and I'm personally glad to see them do it.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Kind of sucks but I dont mind, still the best looking game imo, however, does this mean all Cryengine 3 games will use this resolution???

Credit to Mazingerdude, and his comments



EDRAM strikes again This is why I've never been a huge fan, though I'm too technically ignorant to be informed about that.

So if we know the PS3 version is subHD (from presentation shot), could it have been 720P if there existed no 360 version? In other words was PS3 version just subHD because it's basically multiplatform?

I also think ten steps was not enough to get a precise reading, although it's going to be subHD either way.

Anyways as long as games are "720" vertical they seem to get a pass, at least Halo Reach did. A weird mental thing I guess.

Hmmm, I thought MLB: The Show was the 1st console game with real-time GI.

 

[Ruskie]

Well its not like its end of the world,its not that far of 1280x720.The question is,regarding the tech they are pushing on consoles,can you blame them?My answer is resounding NO.I mean,they have EVERYTHING bar AF running on consoles and on top of all that you will have SP with 24/7 day-night cycles.You can't blame them for having to slightly lower the resolution.