Unreal is Visually Unsatisfactory

I’ve played two games so far that use the Unreal engine: Bioshock and Batman: Arkham Asylum.

When Bioshock was released, it received rave reviews for its graphics — usually, this really meant art style.  I think the graphics were unique that early in the current 7th console generation, but compared to the graphics and art style of current games, Bioshock is not good at all.  Batman has been popular this year; I’ve only played it for about an hour, so I don’t have strong impressions about the game itself.  Its art style is quite different from that of Bioshock and seems ok, but very undistinguished.

However, there’s something about the two games that makes them look extremely similar.  It could be a characteristic look that wet surfaces have.  To me, both these games have a slightly unpleasant visual aspect.  I look at the graphics and grimace.  The surfaces, the rendering doesn’t impress me; it is extremely mediocre.  Objects somehow don’t seem to stand out from the general background.  The rendering seems heavy-handed somehow, like they used shadows too heavily or tried too hard to bump-map everything.

It’s hard to tell without playing more Unreal games, but I think it is the engine and not the games that put me off.

The PS3-X360 Graphical Power Debate?

PS3 and X360 fans and publicity spin doctors have been at each other’s throats about which is more “powerful” graphically.  It’s one of the biggest debates in gaming today, up there with “PSN vs. XBL”, “does the Wii compete with the PS3 and X360″ and such.

The Question

Part of the problem in blog comment and online forum shouting matches is they don’t usually specify what they are arguing about.  A whole variety of questions are addressed.  Two people will argue against each other, but their posts will be about slightly different issues.  Here are some examples of different questions:

1. Is it cheaper to develop a game with the graphical quality of a Halo game on the PS3 or the X360, assuming that it is developed for only one console?
2. Is it cheaper to develop a game with the graphical quality of a Halo game on the PS3 or the X360, assuming that it will be a multiplatform game?
3. Is it possible to develop a game of Uncharted 2 graphics quality on the X360?  Which development would be cheaper?

These questions may all have different answers, some favouring the PS3 and others favouring the X360.

It’s important to clarify that I’m only considering graphical horsepower, not art direction.  A game might “look good” to someone.  This depends on two things: graphical power and art direction.  Art direction is the subjective component.  Graphical power corresponds to things like anti-aliasing and the number of polygons rendered, light sources and polygon detail.  Appreciation of graphical power is also partly subjective.  Different people prefer different types of anti-aliasing, for instance.  However, it is a lot more objective than art direction.  So I’ll focus on graphical horsepower — that is what I mean when I use the word quality.

The mulitplatform question is particularly muddy.  It’s unclear even what the question means.  Suppose you developed a multiplat game with development primarily on the X360, then ported to the PS3 (but made absolutely sure the quality was the same).  How to specify how much money was spent on each console?  You can’t count the original development cost towards the X360 and the porting cost towards the PS3, since that would be unfair to the X360. On the other hand, it is well known that it is hard to make a port with the same quality as the original so the cost of the PS3 is unfairly inflated as well.  (The same problems crop up if you flip the roles of the PS3 and the X360.)

Suppose for now we focus on non-cross-platform games.  This may be unfair to the X360, looking only at questions which are favourable to the PS3, but the question is hard to define.  Hopefully I’ll have a way to reasonably ask the multiplat question after some thought.

Focusing only on single-platform development, any question comparing the two consoles boils down to the following:

Is it more expensive to develop a certain quality of game for the PS3 or the X360?

It is important to note that the above question is not a single question.  It is a series of questions depending on the quality of game you are interested in.  For example, you might ask the question for a game of the quality of Uncharted 2, or a game of the quality of Halo 3.  The answers might be different.  It might be impossible or prohibitively expensive to create a game like Uncharted 2 on the X360.  On the other hand, it might be cheaper to create a game of the quality of Halo 3 on the X360.

Evidence

So far all I’ve done is define the question.  This is a very important step; you have to be clear about what you are asking first.  Now let’s talk about evidence.  For a fixed game quality (e.g. U2, Killzone 2, Gears 2 or Halo 3 quality) how do we assess the evidence that X360 or PS3 is cheaper to develop for?  Here is one rule.  If

1. the quality of game A on the PS3 is better than the quality of game B on the X360 and
2. there are games on the PS3 as high quality or better than game A
3. there are no games on the X360 higher quality than game B

then this constitutes evidence that at quality level A, the PS3 is cheaper to develop for.   It isn’t proof.  It’s just one piece of evidence.  If you have tens of games better than A on the PS3 and no games better than B on the X360, then the body of evidence is inching towards proof.  Otherwise it’s just one piece of evidence.

We do have such a situation.  Game A is Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune and Game B is Gears of War 2.  No game on the X360 has better quality than Gears 2.  Uncharted has better quality than Gears 2.  And there are two games, Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, that are better than Uncharted on the PS3.  This is evidence that the PS3 has higher graphical capabilities than the X360 at the Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune level.

If, tomorrow, someone makes a game on the X360 that’s higher quality than Uncharted 2.  Then the above piece of evidence would no longer hold (condition 3 would be violated), and we’d be in the reverse situation: there would be evidence of the X360′s superiority at the Uncharted level.  But as it stands today, the PS3 has the advantage there.

When we are talking about games at the Halo 3 quality the question is a lot harder to answer.  We could look at the development cost of a game of similar quality on the PS3 and compare, but it would be hard to agree on one of “similar quality” and development costs depend on many things other than graphical quality.  Evidence of sorts is provided by developers such as those from Valve who feel the PS3 is much more expensive to develop for.  However, there are credibility issues with developers who are firmly in one camp.  Just as we wouldn’t take Naughty Dog’s word for the theory that the PS3 is more powerful, we shouldn’t take Valve’s word for the opposite theory.  So far, I can’t think of a clear way to establish evidence at the Halo 3 quality level.

God of War III

The first two God of War games were so good, so fantastic, that it’s hard for GoW III to live up to that level of hype and expectation.  I haven’t played the GoW III demo, but I’m hopeful that it will look good.  That said, I have some specific worries.  The worries came up after I played the demo for Dante’s Inferno on the PS3 recently.

Dante’s Inferno is a God of War clone.  I don’t mean it is similar or borrows ideas or moves, or that they are similar because they are both hack-n-slash, as some people seem to imply on various discussion boards.  No, Dante’s inferno feels like a re-skinned God of War.  EVERY thing is the SAME, from the moves to the jumps to the types of attacks to the camera behaviour.  I had an eerie feeling I was playing a PS2-era God of War game.  And that’s where my worries began to set in.

Take the camera, for instance.  For a PS2 game it might have been ok to have a fixed uncontrollable camera, but this somehow feels very dated and restrictive on the PS3.  It is too old school with the kind of graphics and scenery I’m expecting to enjoy on the PS3.  It may be that some of the other games, such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, have spoiled me.  But I really want to be able to admire the scenery if I want to, and be able to look in any direction I wish.  Heavenly Sword was a game in the God of War genre (indeed it got a bit of criticism for being a GoW derivative when it was first released) that had beautiful visuals AND a user-controllable camera.  I agree that the camera was used to great cinematic effect in the first two GoW titles.  But it just doesn’t feel right on the PS3.  And Uncharted 2 showed us how you can do both things: the user’s control of the camera can be taken away briefly during specific set-pieces or cinematic moments in the game, while still allowing the user to control the camera.  I REALLY want to be able to look at whatever I want.  Another argument in favour of the camera being game-controlled is that the player is free to spend more time fighting, increasing the amount of time spent involved in the game.  This may be valid, but it’s always possible to implement a “camera spring” that takes over if the user isn’t actively controlling the camera, so the player can do his fighting and once that’s done, enjoy the scenery if he wants to.  This is something I really hope they don’t mess up on.

The gameplay itself is supposed to resemble the older version a lot.  I hope that they change it a little, because keeping it too similar to the originals would feel a little old.  There should be a sense of a refresh, of something vastly better and superior and more comfortable, since we’re now on a next-gen console.  That is not to say they should change it completely — I’d want it to remain a God of War game.  I’d like the changes to be subtle but new and different enough to feel like it’s an update rather than a continuation.

Another gameplay concern I have: I thought God of War mixed it up pretty well.  Uncharted 2 showed us how important it is and how rewarding it can feel if the pace is broken up with a feeling of some well-earned respites breaking up the intensity of the combat.  I hope the GoW folks learned from this and put in a few well-made cooldown points in the game.

Magic on the PS3

I really want to play a medieval dungeons and dragons type RPG.  I want it to have a lot of rationalized magic.  By that I mean no JRPG-style weirdness.  I want characters to slowly acquire magic skills via plot elements in the story (not by simply “picking up” a magic item).

I want a deep high fantasy story in a universe that is revealed gradually to the character, full of “wow” moments and epiphanies.  But the character’s story should be fairly linear and designed. Only designed stories are good.  It’s very hard to make good randomized stories that change based on choices.

I want current graphics realizing a beautifully art-directed world.  (PS3-level current graphics, not just X360-level current graphics.)  If it’s going to be a multiplatform, I want it to be all it can on each platform.  No dumbing down the PS3 version because MS is going to be pissed off otherwise.

I want to be able to spend as much time as I wish micromanaging my inventory and abilities.  If I want to do very little micromanagement, that should be ok.  If I want to do it more, that should be ok too.  On a 50+ hour RPG, my mood on this topic is bound to change quite a bit.  I should never have to micromanage inventory if I don’t want to.

I want zero grind.  Leveling up my abilities should be through specific story events and quests that I complete, not by grinding away at beating random monsters.  There should be no random fights.  Each fight should be designed to be interesting, engaging and tedium-repellent.

Games I’ve Played

It’s been a while since the last post.  In the interim, I played a bunch of games — some good, some bad.  Here are some impressions.

Final Fantasy XII

My enjoyment of role-playing games is erratic.  I enjoy them immensely for a while.  But then it starts to feel repetitive and the grind really gets me bored.  Fighting the same monsters over and over in generic randomly generated combinations really gets old fast for me.  I very much prefer designed fights in environments specifically designed to be interesting — as in shooters or fighting games.

I had these same problems with FFXII.  I was a complete newcomer to RPGs — well, other than Diablo II, which I didn’t realize was an RPG at all — when I started playing FFXII sometime in early 2008.  It was a weird experience.  You had effeminate heroes, schoolgirly heroines, and worst of all, cute monsters.  I hate cute monsters right now, partly because I’ve also been playing the incredibly repetitive Dragon Quest VIII.  I played it about 3/4 of the way through, then got too bored to continue.  For about a year.  Then sometime in September 2009 I picked it up again and finished it.

One thing I did like about FFXII is the gambit system.  I hate fights in most JRPGs — the gambit system frees you up from the drudgery of continually pressing the same button during ridiculous turn based fights.

Speaking of boring, repetitive RPGs, Oblivion tops the list of those for me.  The fighting in Oblivion is much better than in most JRPGs — you actually do some real hack & slash.  But I found Oblivion boring for other reasons, maybe because I was too eager to play the weird leveling system.

Bioshock

This game is supposed to have all kinds of awesomeness.  I’ve come back to it three times so far, and I don’t know why but I find it extremely boring.  The atmosphere, art direction, voice acting are good, but I find the gameplay boring, the controls unresponsive, the graphics muddy and uninspiring.  The story is good end-to-end but drags in specific places.  The game is far from a write-off, but I’m having some serious boredom issues with it.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma

This was a game I picked up soon after I got my PS3 Dec 2008.  I started playing it, amazed by its ridiculous, bewildering difficulty level.  Had to give up after a while — I wasn’t in a place where I could deal with that level of aggravation over an extended period of time.  So, had an 8-month hiatus, then started it up again recently.  I’m only in chapter 5, but man, I’m feeling the pain.  My thumb feels a sympathetic twinge of pain everytime it hears the starting music.  So I’m playing it on and off.

I don’t hate this game; it’s fair even though hard.  And that’s more than can be said for some other games.  The MGS series is one.  I love the series, but it just doesn’t play fair.  The difficulty there comes from some clumsy, unintuitive controls with an artificial lag.  Other games have combo animation freeze that make it hard to fight.  NGS has some of that animation freeze, but overall it all feels fair.  When you die, you immediately perceive that it’s your fault.

Resident Evil 5

I had the misfortune to play this game right after Uncharted 2.

That statement needs some explanation, maybe.  See, RE5 was touted as a game with fantastic graphics.  ”One of the prettiest games of this generation. Lighting, textures and landscapes are often stunning.”  This was how IGN described the graphics.  When I played it for the first time, I would not have said this.  I would have used “muddy, uneven textures, blurry graphics, and an overall lack of production values” to describe the graphics.  (I believe Microsoft is dragging these standards down — MS will not permit a higher quality PS3 release, something which would be quite easy to pull off given the additional storage and processing capability of the PS3.  Anyway.)

But that would have been unfair to Capcom.  After playing it for a while, I got used to the graphics.   This game is a real mixed bag.  The character animation is really good, the graphics, though not remotely in the league of Uncharted 2′s, are actually very good too once you get used to them.  The gameplay is classic Resident Evil 4.  Very enjoyable, very tight.    Replayability is high.  It’s a lot of fun playing with different weapons, infinite ammo, and costumes.  The Mercenaries minigame is pretty awesome.

On the bad side, the menu and interface design is a dinosaur, something out of the mid-90s.  It’s clunky and frustrating.  Infinite ammo is great, but once you unlock infinite ammo on a weapon at a certain level, you get infinite ammo even at harder levels.  This makes it possible to beat the game real easily on the second playthrough at the harder levels.  Having a partner can be a pain at times — when playing as Chris, Sheva tends to take out too many of the baddies (the AI is a really good shot).  When playing as Sheva, Chris is a huge pain in the ass.  He always wants to get ahead of Sheva and block up the whole view.  Sheva uses about a third of the screen real estate, and Chris always positions himself so he uses up another huge chunk so you can’t  see anything.  Especially irritating during fights, when he makes it nigh impossible to aim.

Uncharted 2

This is of course the big enchilada.  The fact that it makes RE5 look like a previous gen title says something.  The graphics are polished, but also bright, colourful, beautiful with a fully varied palette.  No sepia brown or grey-green sheen here.  About the graphics, I do think they could have done with a little bit of antialiasing.  This was also true in the first Uncharted: Naughty Dog seem to have decided to go without antialiasing rather than use AA and potentially spoil some of the visuals.  The result is a super-sharp, super-crisp look that’s great, but I did occasionally feel some textures looked too sharp or too textured.  Now this is only a complaint within the league of games that it’s possible to compare with Uncharted 2.  At this point, there are only 2 such games: the first Uncharted and Killzone 2.  It’s very hard to compare Killzone 2 and U2, since their art direction is very different.  But overall, I tend to prefer the Uncharted look, if only because of the more varied and positive colours.

It’s not just the graphics, of course.  Every single aspect of the gaming experience has been fine-tuned here to remove any ounce of tedium and let the player focus purely on the gaming experience.  The fabulous checkpointing means that, barring one or two places, you don’t need to worry about dying and keep saving periodically, interrupting your gameplay and distracting you from pure enjoyment.  Of course, the reduction of load times to ABSOLUTE ZERO during gameplay contributes hugely to this too.  All of the controls, the menus, are designed with this in mind: that they should help the player, not get in his way.

U2 is sometimes described as a platformer, but I think this is a bit misleading.  It lacks any of the precision that is needed in platforming games.  Instead, the game actively assists the player, adjusting for any miscalculations he might while jumping or traversing the environment.  The platforming elements and environmental traversal here are purely atmospheric elements.  They are not meant to provide any kind of challenge; there is zero difficulty and/or skill involved in these.  In that sense they are not really part of gameplay.  Instead, they simply move the story along, playing a bit like an interactive movie, and add a sense of vertigo or wonder.

The designed firefights are truly awesome.  I wish there was a way to pick a particular fight and go through it without actually having to play the entire chapter (or having to remember which save game is which).  The world is so traversable in all directions that trying different strategies during firefights is immensely enjoyable and rewarding.