Michel Ancel, who has previously designed Rayman and Beyond Good & Evil, has also worked on the creation of Rayman Origins, a game which has just reached the shores of UK
Ubisoft has announced the release of the game, Rayman Origins, in the UK on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii. Rayman Origins features incredible graphics matching the level of detail and quality of the biggest animated movies, gameplay both accessible and challenging and an original soundtrack. It’s an interactive game, created by Michel Ancel, with all characters and environments designed by professional artists. The game features a detailed and vibrant universe, six different worlds and more than 60 levels, where each element is meant to feel organic. The game is a single-player, as well as playable with up to four players, where gamers can play Rayman, Globox or one of two Teensies. Gamers are also challenged to find all secret areas and access the bonus “Land of the Dead” world. A free demo of the game is also available for download on the Xbox Live Arcade and the PlayStation Network. What games have you been playing lately? Let us know via the comments box or through Twitter and Facebook.
Battlefield 3 takes on Call of Duty at its own game of cinematic singleplayer thrills and frantic, communal multiplayer, one half proves more successful than the other.
It’s two games, really, in the way that all blockbuster video games released today seemingly must be. The first is the solitary, cinematic military experience, crafted with both eyes firmly on the cultural behemoth that is Activision’s Call of Duty series, strapping you into combat boots and shoving you off down an interactive rollercoaster filled with dramatic set-pieces through the pock-marked streets of Iraq.
You play as a named marine, reliving his battle memories across various theatres of war via interactive flashbacks, as told to his superiors who bang the table while assuring your character that yes, they can handle the truth (a narrative structure lifted wholesale from last year’s Call of Duty: Black Ops).
It has a clear script with a beginning, middle and end, but only the most basic choices can be made in moving through each. Do you shoot this terrorist or that terrorist first? Once they’re both down, there are no options left open to you save to follow the corridor to wherever the next set piece is triggered. This is the Battlefield 3 movie game, the experience that prizes spectacle and a prescribed story over player choice.
The second is the communal, multiplayer experience that takes its cues from playground games of cops and robbers and the series’ own celebrated history as it straps you into combat boots and shoves you onto the streets of Paris or the green hills of the Caspian Border.
You play as a nameless marine, free to create your own battle memories in various theatres of war. Each battle has an objective – kill the other team, destroy their M-COM stations – but no clear script and endless choices to be made as you try to find your way. Do you shoot this terrorist or that terrorist first? Do you crawl along the ground, prone as you work your way towards the rival team’s base? Or take the long route by swimming out to sea and heading back in a wide arc? Or do you save your boots altogether and clamber into a tank or a jeep or a helicopter or even a jet fighter plane, ejecting at 500 feet to parachute down onto the objective? This is the Battlefield 3 game, the experience that prizes spectacle and player choice over a prescribed story.
In contrast to most other contemporary blockbusters, the two disparate parts of the experience are split onto their own game discs, heightening the sense that they are entirely separate entities. Indeed, they may share a general control scheme, but if you want to switch from the single player to the multiplayer campaign, then you are going to have to switch discs, as if you were inserting an entirely new game into the machine.
The issue is that the two halves are not equal in terms of quality. Opt to install the 1.5 GB’s worth of HD data and each looks as good as the other (around the same visual fidelity as the PC version on its lower graphical settings) and both games certainly look the part. But this is where the similarities end. The single player game feels as if it has been specifically crafted to ‘beat’ another franchise. And, while it enjoys a number of memorable set-pieces and some incredible sound design, in tracing over the template laid down by Infinity Ward’s series, it inherits all of the weaknesses as well as strengths of that game.
The incessant quicktime events (which have you tapping a button on cue to, for example, stab a rat) feel out-dated, while the lack of player agency grates. Climb into the cockpit of a jet fighter and, rather than being able to fly the plane, you simply get to aim the gun on an on-rails experience. Wind the difficulty up to ‘hard’ mode, which turns off the aim assist and increases the accuracy of the enemies and the charade falls apart as you see just how thin, scripted and inflexible this war story really is.
By contrast, the multiplayer game is best in class. As with previous titles in the series, the emphasis is on teamplay and the series’ differentiator –vehicles- which are wholly absent from the Call of Duty series. The use of planes and tanks (which can be piloted by any player) has the effect of expanding the geography of the maps, many of which are huge, allowing up to 24 players to do battle. While the use of heavy armour brings fearful chaos into play, foot soldiers have landmines, C4 and surface-to-air missiles to even the odds, and at every point developer DICE’s skill in balancing the taut cat’s cradle of tactical options. While the use of heavy armour brings fearful chaos into play, foot soldiers have landmines, C4 and surface-to-air missiles to even the odds, and at every point developer DICE’s skill in balancing the taut cat’s cradle of tactical options is self-evident.
Structures in the maps can be destroyed, changing the environment to create new cover points and danger zones giving each battle a dynamic, live feel that’s wholly exciting. There’s a choice of four classes to play as (assault, recon, engineer and support), each one bringing their own strengths to the team and encouraging thoughtful, complementary selection. You earn points not only for kills but also assists, a currency which unlocks new weapons, attachments, gadgets and specialisations that increase your power in the game world on a per class basis.
There have been some teething issues in the few days since launch, with overcrowded servers combining with a broken matchmaking that has forced the developer to include a message advising that players attempt to connect to games manually. But as these issues diminish, so the strengths of the online multiplayer amplify, and the fact that Battlefield 3 boasts one of the most frantic, strategic, diverse and flexible playpens for generating communal memories becomes clear.
If there’s one thing that can be deduced when commenting on this year’s football efforts from Konami and EA, it’s that these are sterling examples of why a little competition is healthy. Konami turned out a fine product with PES 2012, and EA has responded in kind with an absolutely brilliant effort for Fifa 12. This is an effort along the lines of a Robin van Persie free kick for goal; Landon Donovan scoring a last-second miracle in the World Cup, or Rooney throwing elbows with the intention to hurt people badly. It’s a near perfect effort that still has a few hang-ups and tweaks to go through, but Fifa 12 is surely the best EA has ever produced for the series.
This is also quite a different experience for Fifa veterans since the speed of the game has been toned down greatly. It’s a game that requires a bit of finess while attacking, and outright tenacity while defending. This is largely due to gameplay refinements brought by EA’s new Impact Engine; one of three major improvements EA has been banking on for improving the series. I was a bit underwhelmed when I played the demo in August, but it’s easy to see how these improvements have impacted the game once given a little time. Fifa 12 is shaping up to be the real deal.
Upon starting up Fifa 12, players are greeted by the familiar voice of Martin Tyler, who has become a staple for the Fifa franchise. This brief introduction puts a great emphasis on the Online modes in Fifa 12,and it’s clear that the community presence is playing a huge factor in this year’s game. Next, players are given a short tutorial that demonstrates the new tactical defending, however this training feels a bit rushed and not very comprehensive. Sure, there’s more of a defensive emphasis in this game, but there’s nothing about offensive improvements. There’s a need for more in-depth tutorials if all new concepts are introduced to many veterans and first-time players. It’s a missed opportunity for EA, and it leaves new players in an awkward position. The game’s learning curve came to about an hour for me, and the first matches were a very tough go initially. I was losing friendly matches with Arsenal against inferior teams by two goals or more. It was quite frustrating at first, but I eventually got around to modifying tactics to my liking. The control issues eventually wore off, and games became a more enjoyable fare.
Get ready for some action.
A typical match in Fifa 12 feels much more intense than ever before; this is due to the defensive refinements and the much more aggressive AI. The default difficulty setting for Fifa 12 is different than what people may remember. There are the exceptional few who can turn on legendary difficulty and still rock shop, but 99% will feel a drastic difference in the AI. This is the toughest Fifa has ever been, and I think players will appreciate it once they get past the controls. Speaking of which, the controls are quite intuitive, and the tactical defending works well. Players will remember from last year’s game that tactical defending was pretty much based on pressing the A or X (PS3) buttons to send your defender flying with reckless abandon towards the attacker. However, this year shows a much more patient form of defense. Players hold down the right bumper to square up on an attacker to keep containment. The A button holds automatic contain, however, pressing the right bumper at the same time will call over a teammate to double down on the attacker. It’s a helpful addition that applies greater pressure to offensive players.
Next, the new precision dribbling feature helps provide more offensive security when charging down field. The left trigger helps produce shorter, more controlled dribbles to prevent easy takeaways. This also causes the offensive player to shield defenders away from the ball, and it requires a true sense of patience. Chances may present themselves as opportunities for quick steals or straight on attacks, but the tactically-minded players will know better and look for the more proper opportunities. The AI is dangerously effective, and risks will often be met with turnovers. Moreover, the new impact engine does a good job of giving weight to the players on the pitch. Disorganized play will result in players toppling over opponents or even their own teammates. Everything, including the ball, has a sense of presence on the field, and that is a very nice touch.
The impact engine gives players a sense of presence and a bit of weightiness.
The only quibble I have with the gameplay is that passing feels rather sluggish and inaccurate. It didn’t seem to matter if I was playing short or long-ball tactics; passes would often go into uncharted territory when I didn’t want them to. When I pointed to a nearby player, the pass often sailed past him toward another player about 15 to 20 yards out. These would often turn into interceptions, and the passing made what should have been a stellar experience a little less so. The AI has been ramped up greatly this year, but it seems as though most of the enhancements went to the computer opponent side of the ball. I’m all for difficulty, but when your own teammates move rather anemically despite what sort of tactics are selected, it just adds a bitter taste to an otherwise fantastic cake.
THIS IS TRUE GAMING BLISS.
With the gameplay enhancements making a raucous entrance this year, the other aspects to the game have received some much needed attention. It is clear that EA is placing a big emphasis in online play inFifa 12 with several community enhancements to improve the experience. One feature that has become a standard in recent EA Sports games is the support your team option that pits clubs from around the world in an all-out fan war to claim dominance. As players accumulate XP, the effort begins to show in the club leaderboards. However, since this is a world-wide popular franchise, some clubs may not have the support in numbers as others do. In a twist to even things out, smaller clubs receive a special XP modifier to make smaller clubs more relevant on the world stage. Also included in the online functionality is a community effort to keep friends together, and eliminate random encounters. Players can still enter public lobbies, but the community feature makes playing Fifa 12 a much more enjoyable experience from an online perspective. Also, as far as I could tell, the latency was rather smooth during online matches. It didn’t feel overtly laggy compared to other EA Sports titles (I’m looking at you, Madden and NCAA Football).
Not to be kept out of the loop are the offline modes of Be A Player and Be A Manager. Both experiences are more robust compared to last year’s effort, and the drama is heavier this time with an improved transfer window that goes to the midnight hour on the last day. It’s an intense experience, wheeling and dealing up to the final hour, and squad morale becomes a greater factor for this year. This makes for a dynamic experience, and it can be disheartening when star players demand to be transferred (van Persie, how could you?). Another interesting mode is the Fifa Ultimate Team which essentially comes across as a mix of CCG mechanics and fantasy football. Players begin with a “starter deck” of players and a manager, which can be modified and improved as much as the player wishes. Players begin with a bottom feeder team and can play other teams online or offline to collect coins. These coins can eventually be traded in for booster packs for additional players or consumable cards that enhance teams in a variety of ways. It’s an interesting mode for the true football junkies as the quest to put together the perfect team is sure to be a time consuming one.
The new club mode gives an extra bit of incentive for club pride.
Moving on to presentation, it’s quite clear that EA really has the best methods for recreating a live match-day broadcast. Martin Tyler and newcomer Alan Smith represent the best commentary team produced for any sports game. The conversational aspect of their broadcast style shines in this year’s effort, and Smith steps in as a proper replacement for Andy Gray after Gray’s controversial 2011. Smith is a former Arsenal player, and his presence brings a great player’s perspective to the commentary. Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend serve as backups in tournament and exhibition matches, but the premiere team of Tyler and Smith is absolutely perfect. The commentary is also top-notch due to the depth of topics that Tyler and Smith exhibit. I normally turn commentary off for all sports games, but Fifa 12 makes a stellar argument against doing that.
EA’s partnership with Sky Sports has not gone to waste as the development team has shown great care in replicating the feel of a match-day broadcast. Furthermore, stadiums from around the world have been recreated in stellar fashion. Crowd noises are incredible in places like Emirates Stadium and Old Trafford, but even the smaller stadiums have a life all their own. Even playing at smaller venues like Sunderland’s Stadium of Light are rowdy affairs as passionate fans sing and stomp and cadence. The smaller stadiums are actually a joy to experience, and apply a great amount of pressure to away teams.
I NEVER THOUGHT WAYNE ROONEY COULD LOOK UGLIER
Graphically, Fifa 12 doesn’t match up to Pro Evolution Soccer 2012, but it does run drastically smoother and animations don’t come across quite as janky. However, it’s a bit disappointing that players still look like lifeless, plastic toys in comparison to their real-world counterparts, especially when such great care has been provided to the recreation of stadiums and broadcasts. Perhaps this allows for smoother animation and framerates, but they simply don’t match up to what PES has made as a standard for visual fidelity.
Player models animate exceptionally well at the expense of looking like plastic toys.
TWO FRANCHISES ENTER…
Fifa 12 is really on its way to becoming the de facto premiere franchise if Konami cannot keep up with EA’s pace. While both franchises are practically neck-and-neck as far as quality footy goes, the choice between the two just comes down to what feels right.
PES 2012 is the better looking game, and the UEFA license helps the series stay relevant, but EA is applying the screws to Konami in nearly every way. The Managerial modes in both PES and Fifa have been greatly improved, and both games provide fine experiences. I think Konami wins out with its Master League and The Life modes since those are true experiences for first-time managers or players. That “work from the bottom to the top” approach adds more drama and excitement. In contrast, when I created a player to play for Arsenal, he was a striker rated at 70. For some reason, the manager thought it brilliant to place him as a starter in front of Robin van Persie. I was expecting to toil as a reserve to some extent, but that turned out to not be the case. In contrast, EA’s online modes are superior to Konami’s effort for PES. While PES has included facebook community integration, EA has a more robust community with Virgin Gaming backing its online arena.
Easily one of the most demanding video games released last year, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 featured stunning graphics with real-world damage and excellent gameplay. Still upon release the shooter was very buggy, so much that it delayed our performance article. Built around the Frostbite 1.5 engine, the game was eventually patched up to become a very popular online FPS having sold in excess of 9 million copies.
Battlefield 3, the latest in a long line of Battlefield titles is likely the most anticipated game of 2011. Using the new Frostbite 2 engine the game promises to deliver jaw dropping visuals coupled with fast paced action packed fun.
The gorgeously crafted video teasers have certainly helped the cause throughout the year. Battlefield 3 has huge momentum behind it and the cross-platform beta will hopefully serve developers towards a solid release next October 25th. After all, between the mandatory Origin PC download and the lack of private servers (a standing trend these days), no one is up for a troublesome laggy connection when trying to frag on launch day.
Battlefield 3 will feature both single and multiplayer modes, though the beta is only providing access to the multiplayer portion of the game. The beta includes a single map called “Operation Metro” and the only game mode supported on this map is called rush. There are password-protected servers that have access to the Caspian Border map with 64-player support where DICE is testing out vehicles.
Admittedly we love that Battlefield 3 is using the PC as the lead platform rather than a console. When played on the PC the game will handle 40 more players and will take advantage of the latest computer hardware with support for DirectX 11 and 64-bit processors. As such the recommended system specifications are notably high.
DICE recommends a quad-core CPU be used along with 4GB of system memory. As for the graphics card a GeForce GTX 560 or Radeon HD 6950 is suggested, meaning that gamers will want to spend around $200 on a modern graphics card to appreciate Battlefield 3. Today we’ll take a peak at what’s required to play Battlefield 3 as we check out how the beta performs.
Testing Notes & Methodology
For testing the Battlefield 3 beta we lined up 18 graphics card configurations across all price ranges. The latest drivers were used for all cards which is important as both AMD and Nvidia released updated drivers specifically for this game.Testing Battlefield 3 was somewhat of a nightmare due to the clumsy system used to find games which relies on an external web browser. Rather than feature an in-game finder Battlefield 3 beta cannot be accessed until the player has found and joined a game. This means it’s not possible to change settings until the player is actively playing on a map.
We used Fraps to measure frame rates during a minute of gameplay from the multiplayer map Operation Metro. The performance was measured from the same spawn point each time following the same path while an average of three runs was recorded.
Battlefield 3 was tested at three resolutions: 1680×1050, 1920×1200 and 2560×1600. The game was tested using the Ultra and High quality presets which are meant to be the same for the beta, yet we found significant differences between the two.
When set to Ultra every setting is maxed out with the exception of anti-aliasing post which is set to medium. The anti-aliasing deferred settings is set to 4xMSAA while anisotropic filtering is set to 16x. Other quality settings such as texture, shadow, effects, mesh, terrain and terrain decoration are all set to Ultra.
The Ultra preset was extremely demanding, so we also tested using the High quality preset. This turned anti-aliasing deferred off and left the anti-aliasing post settings on medium. All other visual quality settings as detailed above are turned to high. We’ll be looking for an average of 60fps for stutter-free gameplay.
Test System Specs - Intel Core i7 2600K - x2 4GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 8-8-8-20) - Asus P8P67 Deluxe (Intel P67) - OCZ ZX Series 1250w - Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB (SATA 6Gb/s) - GeForce GTX 590 (3072MB) - GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB) SLI - GeForce GTX 580 (1536MB) - GeForce GTX 570 (1280MB) - GeForce GTX 560 Ti (1024MB) - GeForce GTX 560 (1024MB) - GeForce GTX 480 (1536MB) - GeForce GTX 470 (1280MB) - GeForce GTX 460 (1024MB) - Radeon HD 6990 (4096MB) - Radeon HD 6970 (2048MB) Crossfire - Radeon HD 6970 (2048MB) - Radeon HD 6950 (2048MB) - Radeon HD 6870 (1024MB) - Radeon HD 6850 (1024MB) - Radeon HD 5870 (2048MB) - Radeon HD 5830 (1024MB) - Radeon HD 6790 (1024MB) - Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit - Nvidia Forceware 285.38 Beta - ATI Catalyst 11.10 Preview
Ultra Quality Performance
At 1680×1050 using the Ultra settings we were surprised to find Battlefield 3 to be so demanding. The Radeon HD 6950 averaged just 30fps, while the GeForce GTX 570 was noticeably faster, matching the Radeon HD 6970 with 39fps. The GeForce GTX 580 scored 42fps which is still low for the fastest single GPU graphics card money can buy.
The Radeon HD 6990 spat out a more respectable 61fps, while a pair of Radeon HD 6970 Crossfire cards were slightly faster with 64fps. The GeForce GTX 590 averaged 67fps, following the pair of GeForce GTX 580 SLI cards that managed an impressive 74fps.
Increasing the resolution to 1920×1200 hit performance further as the Radeon HD 6950 delivered less than 30fps. The GeForce GTX 580 remained the fastest single GPU card with an average of just 36fps. Dual-GPU solutions performed considerably better, with the GeForce GTX 580 SLI configuration stealing the show once again with 64fps.
There is no denying that dual-GPU configurations are a must at 2560×1600 using Ultra settings. The slowest single GPU card we tested, the Radeon HD 6950 averaged just 20fps. The GeForce GTX 570 also managed 21fps while the GeForce GTX 580 was slightly faster with 23fps.
Even the Radeon HD 6990 scored a mere 34fps while the Radeon HD 6970 Crossfire cards and GeForce GTX 590 were matched at 36fps.
High Quality – 1680×1050
Reducing the visual quality from the ultra to high drastically helped to improve performance. Here the Radeon HD 6950 is now able to average 47fps at 1680×1050, while the GeForce GTX 570 managed 51fps allowing it to match the Radeon HD 6970.
The GeForce GTX 580 was king of the single GPU cards with 58fps making it 14% faster than the Radeon HD 6970. Further down the chart we find the GeForce GTX 560 Ti averaging 43fps making it slightly faster than the 42fps of the Radeon HD 6870.
Budget-minded cards such as the Radeon HD 6850, 5830 and GeForce GTX 460 still struggled to deliver playable performance when using the high quality settings at 1680×1050.
High Quality – 1920×1200
Now at 1920×1200 the GeForce GTX 580 was able to average 50fps, followed by the GeForce GTX 570 with 46fps. The Radeon HD 6970 was slightly slower with 45fps. The GeForce GTX 560 Ti and Radeon HD 6870 struggled with 36fps, while the Radeon HD 6850, 5830, 6790 and GeForce GTX 460 all rendered less than 30fps.
High Quality – 2560×1600
Not unlike previous results we find that the 2560×1600 resolution calls for a dual-GPU solution, even with the high quality preset in use. The GeForce GTX 580 averaged just 34fps, while the GeForce GTX 570 and Radeon HD 6970 averaged 31fps. South of those graphics cards there is nothing worth talking about.
This time the Radeon HD 6990 outgunned the GeForce GTX 590 by 4fps with an average of 57fps. The Radeon HD 6970 Crossfire and GeForce GTX 580 SLI configurations both averaged 64fps.
CPU Scaling and Performance
Overclocking your Core i7 processor is not going to help deliver more performance in Battlefield 3 according to our test using a single GeForce GTX 580 card. We observed that a 49% increase in clock speed for the Core i7 allowed for a mere 6% increase in frame rates.
Processors that only support 2 threads will take a hit as our Phenom II X2 560 delivered 42fps, almost 20% slower than a similarly clocked Phenom II X4 processor. However we were surprised by how well dual-cores performed when compared to other recently tested games.
Games such as Hard Rest, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings and Crysis 2 saw a massive difference in performance between dual and quad-core processors. For example, in Deus Ex dual-cores were 43% slower than their quad-core counterparts.
For the most part Battlefield 3 doesn’t appear to be all that CPU demanding, at least this is what we can tell from testing the multiplayer portion that the beta allows us to test. We’ll be keen to revisit these results once the full version of the game is released.
Conclusion
Battlefield 3 certainly looks like an impressive game though to be honest between testing and the frustrating setup process for each iteration, I’ve not had much of a chance to play it fully. From what I was able to gather, there is still much to be done. The lack of an in-game server browser is troubling, while the inability to change any settings without being in a game and spawned is just down right foolish.Of course, there’s a beta for a reason and we have to try and treat it as such. The night after the beta went live our editor Matthew DeCarlo organized a Friday Night Fragfest (we host such an event every Friday night), so I felt it was best to ask him about his impressions of the game.
Matt felt the game’s graphics were great — especially if the final version is going to be even better — and that the audio was fantastic. However the gameplay could only be described as buggy. There were problems that caused people to glitch into things they shouldn’t have, while the hit detection is also very poor. Matt wasn’t keen on the beta map either or the game mode which required too much crawling around and he went on… The menu system is best described as a cruel joke and he found the chat box oddly placed at the top and somewhat to the right of the screen making the chat UI feel amateurish.
In a nutshell, initial impressions on gameplay are not great but this is a very limited beta, so we will leave it at that. Still it’s scary to think how much work DICE has yet to get done in less than a month for Battlefield 3 to succeed.
As for my impressions on how well the game performs, BF3 certainly looks great when using the high quality settings but I’m not sure the visuals justify ~50fps out of the GeForce GTX 580 at 1920×1200 and 45fps from the Radeon HD 6970. The ultra settings are not fully developed so I won’t comment on them.
For a game that was seen utilizing six threads quite efficiently, we were pleased to see that the dual-core Phenom II X2 was just 20% slower than a similar configured quad-core processor.
It’s been nice to see AMD and Nvidia competing so aggressively to deliver improved support and compatibility for Battlefield 3. Testing revealed that both Crossfire and SLI worked well, though every now and then flickering glitches were noticed when using either technology. A large number of gamers are reporting flickering issues with single GPU configurations as well, so this is another issue that will needed to be addressed before the game is released.
The Battlefield 3 beta has somewhat disappointed as we were hoping to see a more polished game just a month away from release. That said we’ll reserve final judgment until then and expect a detailed performance analysis once Battlefield 3 is officially released.
