• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DF face-off: Sleeping Dogs

NinjaBoiX

Member
Eurogamer just dropped their Sleeping Dogs article. Here's a few choice snippets and a link:

Edit: the link is back live, they just reposted it.

Edit 2: finished posting console impressions. Added PC Impressions.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sleeping-dogs-face-off

Digital Foundry said:
The use of a deferred shading set-up has implications for both consoles, resulting in two distinct implementations. On Microsoft's system, Sleeping Dogs adopts a native 1200x720 presentation, with an 80-pixel horizontal upscale to 720p, while on the PS3 we're looking at a much lower 1152x640, which has more severe implications with regards to overall image quality. Anti-aliasing on both consoles is a post-process, most likely provided by NVIDIA's popular FXAA solution, although we find that the PS3 uses a more aggressive edge-detect algorithm in order to smooth over the additional jaggies created by the heavy upscale.

While the 360 game gives a passable impression of a native 720p presentation, it looks significantly blurrier on the PS3: the combination of the much heavier upscaling and a stronger FXAA solution covering the final image in a veil of softness. Finer texture details that are visible on both platforms are smoothed over and edges feature a distinct softness that is regularly apparent with anti-aliased sub-HD games. Specular highlights are also subdued on the PS3 due to the stronger edge-detection being employed, although this doesn't come across as a particular downside given that the characters can look a little too shiny in some scenes on the 360.

Aside from the obvious resolution differences, it is clear that the PS3 version is missing some of the more intricate texture details found on the 360, a situation not helped by the more aggressive FXAA implementation. Additionally, we also find that normal maps feature less distinctive bumps and ripples, leading to the affected surfaces looking a touch blockier in nature. The reason for this is that lower resolution artwork is used on many objects throughout the game, thus resulting in visible detail loss, while normal maps appear to be using a different, more lossy compression scheme which creates artifacts on surfaces which use the effect - the Xenos GPU has access to improved texture compression technology compared to RSX, which may explain this.

Elsewhere, a few other nip/tucks have been made to the PS3 code. The level of anisotropic filtering is lower on the Sony platform, impacting the clarity of the artwork from a distance, and lower quality LOD (level of detail) models are used during the cut-scenes, which see a number of small detail-enhancing features missing. The hair on the characters has been simplified slightly on the PS3 and the normal mapping present on the jewellery they are wearing is also absent. Meanwhile, in terms of post-processing effects, motion blur appears to be identical on both formats, although depth of field is stronger on the PS3.

The 360 tends to hold itself closer to the desired 30FPS update more often than the PS3, with smaller dips in scenes which tax the engine. Generally there's less screen-tear too. The tearing can be quite unsightly on the PS3 at times, with the tear-line moving up and down the screen creating a juddering effect, and this isn't helped by the more variable frame-rate which drops lower - and for longer.

However, across a more general run of play, these issues are far less severe on both consoles, and the PS3 version manages to equalise with the 360 for the most part - in fact, there are times when one version has the slight edge over the other, and vice-versa. Outside of a few distinct issues both versions manage to meet their 30FPS target reasonably well, with complex parts of the environment and quick camera pans being the most common cause for a dip in smoothness.

There are some similarities with our gameplay footage: both consoles seem to operate with roughly similar frame-rates, with the 360 taking a small lead in some scenes and PS3 in others. Both appear similarly matched when it comes down to the amount of screen-tearing we see - the games are both performing here as though v-sync is engaged, but the frame-buffer is flipped just a few milliseconds too late, resulting in a tear right at the very top of the screen. Thankfully this is almost impossible to notice.

Away from graphical concerns, there is a distinct difference in loading times between the two platforms. They are a lot longer on the 360 if you choose not to install the game onto the hard drive. On the PS3 there's a 4GB mandatory install, but this results in some fairly quick loading times when switching between scenes during play - a 360 install equalises things somewhat and in some cases is actually faster.

PC Impressions

Unlike many of today's cut-and-dried PC ports, the computer version of Sleeping Dogs has been given some very special attention. United Front Games are all too keen to stress the inclusion of DirectX 11 upgrades and other advanced graphical features which set apart this version from the console games.

The PC version offers up a range of edge-smoothing options, dubbed normal, high and extreme - the latter featuring a combination of post process-based FXAA along with super-sampling anti-aliasing (SSAA) to provide the cleanest image possible, which appears to max out at around 2x SSAA. Moving up the presets also reveals that the level of FXAA is also increased when going from normal to high, and SSAA when moving from high to extreme.

The combination of FXAA and SSAA modes works very nicely at reducing the amount of shimmering edges on display, with far better sub-pixel coverage than what using a post-process edge smoothing solution alone would provide. However, running the game like this simply isn't playable on anything other than top-end hardware configurations: our Core i5 750 and GTX460 machine barely managed a consistent 20FPS update in 720p, and gave us a disastrous 10-15FPS in 1080p, for the most part resulting in an unplayable mess, with extremely laggy controls and near constant judder.

Beyond image quality, United Front Games has clearly boosted the PC game up considerably in other areas. The environments benefit from more intricate detail due to higher-resolution textures being in play, which helps to spruce up some of the artwork by giving some surfaces a greater amount of depth - the ground textures in particular are now filled with small cracks and other intricacies barely visible, if at all, on the consoles.

A separate high-resolution texture pack has also been released by the publishers. However, this appears to be integrated into the 'core' download package when buying the game from Steam and later installed when the game is activated. We had access to this beforehand with our press download copy, and all our screenshots and videos feature the game with the pack installed.

On top of the upgraded artwork, shadow quality is much improved over the console releases. These elements of the scene are rendered in a higher resolution and are better filtered compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3, while contact-hardening soft shadows are also used, where the shadow penumbra sharpens up when objects interact with them. In addition to the bump in shadow quality, the PC version also features a better use of ambient shading, with higher-quality SSAO and the more advanced HD AO providing increased depth to various scenes while also bringing out even more detail in the characters' faces. Alpha buffers are rendered in higher resolutions than on console, while soft particles further enhance the look of water splashes and other effects.

Hmm, they had more to say, but I accidently clicked off the page, and now they've taken it down. They mentioned something about the controls feeling slightly better on PS3 because of the DS3, *shrugs*.

Also, the PC port sounds most excellent. DX11, and generally just some care and effort put in.

I assume they are tweaking the article, so I'll update the OP later when it comes back. I'll leave the link, as it'll probably stay the same.

Closing thoughts appear to be that both console SKU's run about the same, but the PS3 is pared back quite heavily in a number of ways, and operates at a lesser resolution. Shame, I fancied this on PS3, as they say, it seems to be suited to DS3 with all the face button usage. Oh well, 360 version it is!
 

Feindflug

Member
360 version for me too I guess, btw did they mention anything about pop-in in the article? link is not working and I couldn't find the article at Eurogamer. :p
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
The only thing I don't like about the PC port is the anti-aliasing options. FXAA is forced on every setting, and anything above 'normal' FXAA requires the use of SSAA. Cleans up the neon lights beautifully but man does it come at a performance hit.

Lighting/shadows engine on PC is the best I've seen in an open world game. Night time rainy streets with blooming neon lights and the HD texture pack looks borderline what I'd consider 'next gen'.
 
The only thing I don't like about the PC port is the anti-aliasing options. FXAA is forced on every setting, and anything above 'normal' FXAA requires the use of SSAA. Cleans up the neon lights beautifully but man does it come at a performance hit.

Lighting/shadows engine on PC is the best I've seen in an open world game. Night time rainy streets with blooming neon lights and the HD texture pack looks borderline what I'd consider 'next gen'.
I played some of the 360 version tonight and came away pretty impressed with the city lights, I can only imagine how it'd look on PC. Might have to keep an eye on the PC screenshot thread. :p
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
The only thing I don't like about the PC port is the anti-aliasing options. FXAA is forced on every setting, and anything above 'normal' FXAA requires the use of SSAA. Cleans up the neon lights beautifully but man does it come at a performance hit.
SSAA seems to be an incredibly wasteful method, render at a much higher res then downscale. It's hardly coding genius, more a brute force technique.

MSAA is the best balance of resources and ability. FXAA, while cheap, is, well, cheap looking. SSAA is like using a sledgehammer to crush a walnut. MSAA is a happy middle ground.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
SSAA seems to be an incredibly wasteful method, render at a much higher res then downscale. It's hardly coding genius, more a brute force technique.

MSAA is the best balance of resources and ability. FXAA, while cheap, is, well, cheap looking. SSAA is like using a sledgehammer to crush a walnut. MSAA is a happy middle ground.

That's how I feel. Ideally I'd like to use 4xMSAA and 4xSGSSAA, but compatibility is all over the place so I don't really expect it. But splitting the options between FXAA and SSAA is overkill in my opinion. Most annoyingly you cant turn off FXAA at all. And though I don't know what's going on under the hood, you cannot raise FXAA from 'normal' to 'high' (which I assume would improve the edge detection and reduce blur) without also enabling medium SSAA.

I mean, even with medium SSAA and high FXAA the game cleans up lovely (if has the typical FXAA blur). And everything next to that is simply gorgeous.
 

Feindflug

Member
Sold my Xbox 360. Must go through with PS3 version :(

That's why selling systems that are still "alive and kicking" is not smart.

I'm also hoping for a Darksiders 2 face-off before the game releases here in Europe, the game sounds too awesome so I guess I have to deal with the frame-rate problems on the console versions. :(
 

Truant

Member
The only thing that bugs me about the PC version is that the shadow resolution also affects how the shadows move in the game. When set to high, every shadow moves super smooth when the sun moves. It looks great. However, setting it to medium, they still look fairly good, but they stutter constantly when the sun moves.

Kinda sucks, as there's a 10-15 fps difference between the two settings.
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
PC version all the way then. No way I'm playing this on pS3
I really wanted to, Batman style combat on the Xbox pad isn't ideal. I plumped for Batman AA and AC for PS3, as there was next to nothing in it, and the pad is so much better for melee heavy games. Also, I prefer the wider FOV of the PS3 versions, the camera is to close to the bat on Xbox.
 

gogogow

Member
from LOT, yikes at PS3 version:

sleepingdogs_01cwu3u.gif


sleepingdogs_022wu1r.gif
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
That's why selling systems that are still "alive and kicking" is not smart.

I'm also hoping for a Darksiders 2 face-off before the game releases here in Europe, the game sounds too awesome so I guess I have to deal with the frame-rate problems on the console versions. :(
I wouldn't worry about Darksiders 2, the first one was pretty much parity. In fact, the PS3 had a small lead, until they patched the movies on Xbox (can't remember the details, shitty encoding or something).
 
At this point in this gen, shoddy PS3 ports fall squarely on the shoulders of the development team. The excuses of the early days just don't cut it anymore.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
from LOT, yikes at PS3 version:

sleepingdogs_01cwu3u.gif


sleepingdogs_022wu1r.gif
It's not that bad when you seem them side by side from a technical. Lens of Truth just doesn't adjust in game gamma settings when doing comparisons which causes PS3 games to look really washed out in their shots since they're typically a bit brighter by default.
 

gogogow

Member
It's not that bad when you seem them side by side from a technical. Lens of Truth just doesn't adjust in game gamma settings when doing comparisons which causes PS3 games to look really washed out in their shots since they're typically a bit brighter by default.

It's pretty damn bad, especially this late in the generation. It's sub-hd and you can already see the blurry IQ in such small pictures, it's only getting worse if it's being played on a 40+ inch TV. It's not about being brighter or darker. It's also missing normal maps, lighting, tearing, lower fps, missing water effects etc. It's a very bad port. I'm dissapointed the PS3 version gets shafted (once) again.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
It's pretty damn bad, especially this late in the generation. It's sub-hd and you can already see the blurry IQ in such small pictures, it's only getting worse if it's being played on a 40+ inch TV. It's not about being brighter or darker. It's also missing normal maps, lighting, tearing, lower fps, missing water effects etc. It's a very bad port. I'm dissapointed the PS3 version gets shafted (once) again.
I was just commenting on those particular screens. Haven't seen anything else from the PS3 version. I also hate LoT's comparisons because of the gamma issue so I got on my soap box a bit.
 

danwarb

Member
At this point in this gen, shoddy PS3 ports fall squarely on the shoulders of the development team. The excuses of the early days just don't cut it anymore.

Not really. It still costs more to get a PS3 version up to scratch, which might also see a smaller return.
 

gdt

Member
The PC version is godly. It rings heavy of "next gen". HD texture pack at night is simply crazy.
 

Eideka

Banned
My God the visual differences between the PC and the PS360 versions are seriously embarassing.

But kudos to the dev for making the PC version shine, I'm not going to complain. :)
 
I'm gonna go against the grain here and actually use these comparisons for their intended purpose and buy it for 360. I know I know, don't wanna be that guy, but I only have PS360. lol.
 

leng jai

Member
Open world games on consoles just suck in general. If you're really into the genre you would benefit from a decent PC. Pop-in and framerate are usually pretty dire in comparison.
 
Open world games on consoles just suck in general. If you're really into the genre you would benefit from a decent PC. Pop-in and framerate are usually pretty dire in comparison.

Read Dead Redemption on 360 disagrees with you
Red Faction Guerilla PS3/360 disagrees with you
Batman Arkham City PS3/360 disagrees with you
Saint's Row 3 PS3 disagrees with you
Infamous 1/2 disagrees with you
LA Noire PS3 disagrees with you

I could go on...
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
Cant read cause at work

How's Vsync handled on the console versions?

Soft?



fucking really dude?
I just don't think it's v-synced at all.

And he has a point, basically every aspect is worse on ps3. IQ, effects, textures, reflections, tearing, frame rate (although apparently there are instances where the opposite is the case). I mean, "pos" was maybe going to far, but comparatively speaking, it's a poor port.
 
I just don't think it's v-synced at all.

And he has a point, basically every aspect is worse on ps3. IQ, effects, textures, reflections, tearing, frame rate (although apparently there are instances where the opposite is the case). I mean, "pos" was maybe going to far, but comparatively speaking, it's a poor port.

Poor port is The Darkness or Splinter Cell Double Agent

I'd say Sleeping Dogs is just another PS3 port IE: a lesser version of the 360 all around. I've frankly gotten used to it so yeah, doesn't bother me.

Calling it a POS is hyperbole though
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
My God the visual differences between the PC and the PS360 versions are seriously embarassing.
Embarrassing? Come on man, those consoles are some old shit by now. It's hardly "embarrasing" that cutting edge technology runs the game much better than ancient hardware.

The PS3 port though? That sounds a little embarrassing...
 

wazoo

Member
I really wanted to, Batman style combat on the Xbox pad isn't ideal. I plumped for Batman AA and AC for PS3, as there was next to nothing in it, and the pad is so much better for melee heavy games. Also, I prefer the wider FOV of the PS3 versions, the camera is to close to the bat on Xbox.

you can use the ps3 pad on the PC version too.
 
Read Dead Redemption on 360 disagrees with you
Red Faction Guerilla PS3/360 disagrees with you
Batman Arkham City PS3/360 disagrees with you
Saint's Row 3 PS3 disagrees with you
Infamous 1/2 disagrees with you
LA Noire PS3 disagrees with you

I could go on...

What's wrong with 360 versions of SR3 and LA Noire? (Serious question, haven't played neither yet)
 

KageMaru

Member
Honestly I thought the PS3 version was going to come out on top here since the two video reviews I've seen both used the ps3 version. Will snag the 360 version when I get the time and money.

SSAA seems to be an incredibly wasteful method, render at a much higher res then downscale. It's hardly coding genius, more a brute force technique.

MSAA is the best balance of resources and ability. FXAA, while cheap, is, well, cheap looking. SSAA is like using a sledgehammer to crush a walnut. MSAA is a happy middle ground.

Due to the game using deferred rendering MSAA isn't a realistic option since it blows up the frame buffer size when in use.

Developers should lead on PS3 ! Than you create product parity and that's what is best for consumers.

I thought this did lead on the ps3, no?

At this point in this gen, shoddy PS3 ports fall squarely on the shoulders of the development team. The excuses of the early days just don't cut it anymore.

This isn't true at all. Time with a system does not make certain bottlenecks go away. We don't know how things are set up on the ps3, so we have no real way of knowing what the issues were.

What's wrong with 360 versions of SR3 and LA Noire? (Serious question, haven't played neither yet)

They are slightly inferior to the ps3 version, though not to the degree that I would have left them out.
 
LA Noire is on 3 discs and I believe lacks AO?
Saint's Row 3 gots bad screen tear

The three discs thing, like any multi-disc argument, is completely frivolous. It takes many hours, even getting through the fastest way possible, to reach each disc swap point. Not ideal, certainly, but not a big deal...not on the level of performance/image quality concerns that usually plague inferior versions of multiplatform games, anyway.
 
Not really. It still costs more to get a PS3 version up to scratch, which might also see a smaller return.

No, it doesn't. It might cost more if you start your project with a convoluted engine on the 360, and then attempt to port it over to the PS3 at the last minute, because at that point you've already set yourself up for trouble.

But if you start the game on the PS3, it just makes it easier to port things over to the 360.

So they can drag down the game on other platforms to a lower common level? Why?

No, that is the knee jerk reaction most people have to this topic. Developers who start on the PS3 have stated time and time again that it makes things easier because the PS3 code has to be written in a specific way to work best on that platform. So porting that code over to the 360 is easier than the other way around. It results is both versions being nearly equal in most cases.

No one who has been paying attention this gen actually believes the PS3 is less powerful than a 360. In fact, it could be argued the PS3 is the more powerful console. It just needs smart coders to extract that extra power.

Embarrassing? Come on man, those consoles are some old shit by now. It's hardly "embarrasing" that cutting edge technology runs the game much better than ancient hardware.

I think he knows that. He just had to make sure everyone knew how cool PC gaming is.


This isn't true at all. Time with a system does not make certain bottlenecks go away. We don't know how things are set up on the ps3, so we have no real way of knowing what the issues were.

Each console has weaknesses, but they can be overcome when developers are smart about it. We know this because we've seen dozens of examples over the past 6 years now.
 
Top Bottom