featured image

On May 7, 2020, Microsoft launched the new generation of consoles with a gameplay showcase featuring a wide variety of games planned for the Xbox Series X – and Bright Memory: Infinite was the very first game shown during this presentation. Now, more than two years later – and half a year after the arrival of the PC version – Bright Memory: Infinite has arrived on console. Given its prominent placement in that original showcase, I thought we should check it out here on Digital Foundry. On the surface, this is indeed a ‘next-gen only’ exclusive – you can’t play the game on PS4 or Xbox One consoles – which makes the launch of a Nintendo Switch version all the more intriguing.

Bright Memory: Infinite is a fast-paced first-person shooter that combines spirited gunplay with sword-driven melee combat. It’s not a long game, but what’s here is solid and fairly well executed – almost reminiscent of the 2013 Shadow Warrior reboot, but with a more focused, linear level design. And if you’re playing on the latest consoles, Bright Memory Infinite promises support for 120Hz output and ray-tracing reflections, but not at the same time.

Where it may surprise you most is in its development history. Bright Memory: Infinite is a showpiece for what modern development tools can offer when in the right hands – you see, most of the game’s development tasks were performed by one person. When creating the game, Infinite was built using Unreal Engine 4 with additional supporting software and Quixel resources to speed up development time. That’s not to say this is entirely a solo project – artists, musicians, and voice actors were all needed to complete the game, but considering the quality of the presentation, it’s an impressive feat.

Bright Memory: Infinite is a fascinating title in terms of the development story – and in terms of how the different versions compare.

Bright Memory: Infinite launched on PC and it’s interesting to see the compromises made to move to consoles – required even for PS5 and Series X – and perhaps unavoidably, this mainly involves ray tracing. The PC version includes Nvidia’s ReSTIR Global Illumination feature that provides realistic bounce lighting, ray-traced AO and shadows, and much more robust reflections. Environments also get extra details, but the reflections are perhaps the most important difference. The PC version offers much higher resolution reflections and more surfaces – including rougher materials – benefit from this. Even in scenes with clear puddles, the console versions lack the high-resolution, accurate reflections available on PC.

That said, I think the console version still looks good on its own merits, although there’s a clear pecking order between the different builds, with Xbox Series X delivering higher resolution and more consistent performance than PS5, while Series S inevitably lagging behind both. bumps (lack of both 120Hz and RT support) with Switch cut back massively compared to the others.

For the top consoles, RT functions are limited to reflections and the resolution of these reflections is relatively low, but it is a match between both machines. Compared to the standard screen space solution, RT reflections significantly improve image quality, mainly due to the sheer amount of water in this game – you’ll spend a lot of time running through rivers and lakes and the RT implementation, while not perfect, eliminates those typical SSR artifacts.

Ray tracing is fast on both Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 with RT reflections that make rocks and the many waters look more accurate and convincing.

In terms of picture quality, Xbox Series X comes out on top with both standard mode and ray tracing mode aiming at full 2160p and surprisingly this resolution holds up most of the time. PS5 focuses on this too, but it seems to dip below 4K more often, leading to a slight loss in overall brightness if you look closely. The greater difference becomes apparent when using the game’s high frame rate mode. Xbox Series X most often seems to stick to its 1440p target, while PS5 often drops to 80 percent of this value, leading to further loss of clarity. Xbox Series S and Switch both only have a single display mode in comparison, but all versions allow both the field of view and motion blur to be adjusted, which is definitely nice.

Xbox Series S is targeted at 1440p, but in most cases you’ll find the resolution stuck between 80 and 90 percent of 1440p. On Switch, the game aims for 1080p and 720p in docked and portable modes respectively, but usually falls to about 80 percent of these targets during our random sampling. It’s edgier than your typical Unreal-based Switch game, but I’ll say that. In that sense, the Switch version is wildly fascinating in terms of visual make-up – major sacrifices were needed for this game to succeed on Nintendo’s portable hardware.

Switch works quite well as a crisp, sharp wearable experience – but inconsistent frame pacing at 30fps is disappointing, even if the overall performance level stays anywhere near 30fps.

From launch, it’s clear that many of the cinematic effects, such as depth of field, have been scaled way back on Switch. Lights are taken out of the scene, textures are lower resolution and everything seems simplified. That said, the game retains much of its visual identity and plays at 30fps. Looking closer during gameplay removes even more effects, uses motion blur selectively and greatly reduces the overall complexity of the scene. This is a PC with a lower than lowest setting. Textures, reflections, foliage, lighting, particles and more all diminished in quality, but as a wearable experience I’d say it holds up. Image quality is sharper than usual and motion blur is retained during most sequences, although still optional. It’s both vastly inferior to all other versions of the game, but still surprisingly playable and impressive given the hardware limitations of the Switch itself.

In terms of performance, Switch’s 30fps is marred by inconsistent frame pacing at 30fps, which is disappointing, but when we look at the consoles, Xbox Series X is the best performing version of the bunch. In standard mode, the results are calm – it is very stable. When ray tracing is enabled, performance remains almost as good – most sequences in the game hit 60 frames per second, just like in standard mode, although there are some minor dips in the game. Then we have the 120Hz mode and this is even more surprising – it is extremely stable. The same occasional stutters occur, but it’s actually a rock-solid 120 frames per second, making for a very responsive game. Xbox Series S? Consider the single non-RT 60Hz gaming mode very similar to Series X, just at a lower resolution.

Performance on the Xbox series and PS5 is good in 60Hz modes, although the Sony console seems to have more problems with 120fps in 120Hz mode. VRR cleans this up, but it also works here at a lower resolution than Series X.

PS5? The normal and RT modes are very similar to the Xbox version, both of which typically deliver 60 frames per second with only minor stutters. Heavy scenes can of course drop out occasionally in RT mode, but it’s okay. However, there are issues with the 120Hz mode where issues start to crop up on PS5 – it’s just not as stable as Xbox, although VRR handles this well. It’s worth pointing out that to access 120Hz mode at all, you’ll need to go into the PS5’s system menus and select the performance in the game presets area. Failure to do so means that 120Hz display support will never take effect.

So, is Bright Memory: Infinite worth watching? That’s a bit tricky and requires the full context of what this game is to really appreciate it. Mainly developed by just one person, this game is inspiring. It channels the creepy valley concept, but is applied to triple-A game development. It aims for a triple-A experience and even looks like an AAA shooter. In some ways, but it doesn’t quite work out – and that’s okay, honestly, it’s still a lot of fun.

Bright Memory: Infinite is also a lively game – it clocks in in under two hours, costs $20USD or about £15 depending on the format – but the developer spent years of his life creating it. Was it worth it? I can’t answer that, but it’s definitely something to consider when playing your next video game, especially if your next purchase is made by a small team or even an individual. Releases like these definitely prompt thinking about the creation process. What I’m saying here is that the developer did a great job of creating a simple, streamlined game and if you like what you see here, you might like to give it a try.